Can you cast Animate Object on a corpse?

[SangoProduction]

As the title asks.

[Unavenger]

You should be able to, yes, because corpses are objects.

[DrMotives]

Sure. That's a classic "april fools" prank among evil mages. You have a construct that looks like a zombie, watch how the cleric freaks when turn undead (and any other anti-undead effects) do nothing.

[ben-zayb]

Are corpses objects? Are corpses not magical? Are they within the size limit of the Animate Object spell? If the answers are all yes, then that's your answer.


Sure. That's a classic "april fools" prank among evil mages. You have a construct that looks like a zombie, watch how the cleric freaks when turn undead (and any other anti-undead effects) do nothing.I don't know. Any decently competent cleric should have high enough knowledge religion result to confirm that it's not zombie.

[Chronos]

It's not actually clear in the rules that a corpse is an object. Rather, a corpse is a creature with the Dead condition, and creatures and objects are mutually exclusive (a creature can be an item, but "item" and "object" are not synonyms).

[Uncle Pine]

It's not actually clear in the rules that a corpse is an object. Rather, a corpse is a creature with the Dead condition, and creatures and objects are mutually exclusive (a creature can be an item, but "item" and "object" are not synonyms).

Objects are actually defined in an ironclad fashion under the "nonabilities" entry in the glossary:

Wisdom: Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.

Charisma: Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score.
A corpse has no Wisdom or Charisma score, therefore it's an object.

[Blue Jay]

A corpse has no Wisdom or Charisma score, therefore it's an object.

Are you sure about that? Here's the SRD text for the "Dead" condition:

The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
There's room there to argue that a corpse is still a creature with the "Dead" condition, and not an object. I used this trick on some players recently, so I don't have a problem with it; but from a strict RAW perspective, it doesn't seem clear to me at all, so I think it's purely a DM's call.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Are you sure about that? Here's the SRD text for the "Dead" condition:

There's room there to argue that a corpse is still a creature with the "Dead" condition, and not an object. I used this trick on some players recently, so I don't have a problem with it; but from a strict RAW perspective, it doesn't seem clear to me at all, so I think it's purely a DM's call.Normal corpses can neither observe the world around them nor alter the world around them in any fashion, nor do they distinguish between "me" and "not me," because there is no "me" to distinguish.

They have Wis and Cha -- and are therefore objects.

[MisterKaws]

Are you sure about that? Here's the SRD text for the "Dead" condition:

There's room there to argue that a corpse is still a creature with the "Dead" condition, and not an object. I used this trick on some players recently, so I don't have a problem with it; but from a strict RAW perspective, it doesn't seem clear to me at all, so I think it's purely a DM's call.

Gentle Repose treats corpses as objects.

[Necroticplague]

Gentle Repose treats corpses as objects.

Where does it do that? If anything, Gentle Repose’s wording implies the other method of viewing them is correct.

You preserve the remains of a dead creature so that they do not decay.
Note ‘a dead creature’. If a corpse was an object, it wouldn’t be a creature (because the two categories are mutually exclusive), much less a specific subset of creature.

[martixy]

Normal corpses can neither observe the world around them nor alter the world around them in any fashion, nor do they distinguish between "me" and "not me," because there is no "me" to distinguish.

They have Wis and Cha -- and are therefore objects.

The same can be said for unconscious creatures.
They can neither perceive the world, nor tell the difference between themselves and other things (because they're unconscious!).

They too are an object by your definition.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The same can be said for unconscious creatures.
They can neither perceive the world, nor tell the difference between themselves and other things (because they're unconscious!).

They too are an object by your definition.Then why do loud noises, uncomfortable temperatures, itchy and painful conditions, and bright lights wake unconscious creatures but not corpses?

If I poke a sleeping bear with a stick, it will wake up and maul me. If I poke a corpse, it'll just go 'squish.'

[martixy]

Then why do loud noises, uncomfortable temperatures, itchy and painful conditions, and bright lights wake unconscious creatures but not corpses?

If I poke a sleeping bear with a stick, it will wake up and maul me. If I poke a corpse, it'll just go 'squish.'

Unconscious is broad. From sleeping to comatose.
Poke a comatose creature with a stick and tell me how much it perceived you.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Unconscious is broad. From sleeping to comatose.
Poke a comatose creature with a stick and tell me how much it perceived you.Apparently quite a lot, on average. (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/05/how-science-found-a-way-to-help-coma-patients-communicate)

Even comatose people are at least somewhat aware of the world around them, though the worst of the worst cases are not, and they tend to be only a short step away from brain-death anyway, in which case they'd be like trees -- living objects.

There's a reason it's called a vegetative state.

[Duke of Urrel]

Where does it do that? If anything, Gentle Repose’s wording implies the other method of viewing them is correct.

Note ‘a dead creature’. If a corpse was an object, it wouldn’t be a creature (because the two categories are mutually exclusive), much less a specific subset of creature.

As a quick Google search of the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/search.htm?q=%22dead%20creature%22) shows, the phrase “dead creature” is well attested in D&D. It is mentioned in the texts of the Raise Dead spell and the Speak with Dead spell as well as the Gentle Repose spell. Remember that the descriptions of several other spells (Resurrection and True Resurrection) refer back to the Raise Dead spell. “Dead creatures” are definitely a thing in D&D.

All the same, I disagree that the terms “creature” and “object” are mutually exclusive in D&D. Some things are both creatures and objects. For example, I believe most people are of the opinion that intelligent magic items are both creatures and objects: very special creatures and very special objects, to be sure, but nonetheless both creatures and objects, or better, either creatures or objects, depending on the situation. On the one hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/intelligentItems.htm):


Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs.

On the other hand, few dungeon masters (and even fewer players, I think) would argue that you cannot cast the Locate Object spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateObject.htm) or the Obscure Object spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/obscureObject.htm) on an intelligent item because these spells affect only "objects" and an intelligent item is a "creature."

The rules of D&D are far too inconsistently written to allow us to make sweeping assumptions about what an "object" is or what a "creature" is on the basis of any single text passage.

Is a corpse an object or a creature? As a player, I declare myself neutral on this question, but as a dungeon master, I side with those who say that when somebody tries to cast the Animate Objects spell upon a corpse, it counts as a special kind of creature, not as a special kind of object.

Post-Script: Indeed, as a dungeon master, I am so persnickety that don't even allow the Animate Objects spell to work on living trees (though dead trees are fair game). Although normal living plants are defined as inanimate objects in the game of D&D, they are alive and therefore cannot be imbued with “a semblance of life.” Consequently, I make it a house rule that you cannot animate normal living plants with the Animate Objects spell.

[Uncle Pine]

Are you sure about that? Here's the SRD text for the "Dead" condition:

There's room there to argue that a corpse is still a creature with the "Dead" condition, and not an object. I used this trick on some players recently, so I don't have a problem with it; but from a strict RAW perspective, it doesn't seem clear to me at all, so I think it's purely a DM's call.
A corpse isn't a dead creature, but the remains of a dead creature: the passage you quoted yourself mentions that upon death "the character's soul leaves his body"; raise dead mentions how "the body of the creature to be raised must be whole" as opposed to just "the creature"; resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm) requires at least a portion that "have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death", not just a portion of the creature; true resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm) "can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed", once again making a distinction between a creature and its body.

Moreover, if you decided to interpret corpses as not being objects you'd run into the following dilemma: outside specific exceptions, creatures cannot be sundered. In other words, if corpses are still creatures, they cannot be destroyed - inflicting damage has no additional effects on them, because dead is a binary condition acquired at -10 or lower hit points. Clearly corpses can be destroyed (true resurrection is specifically helpful when this happens), therefore corpses can't simply be creatures with the dead condition. In this case, they're objects.



Gentle Repose treats corpses as objects.

Where does it do that? If anything, Gentle Repose’s wording implies the other method of viewing them is correct.
I assume MisterKaws is referring to the fact that gentle repose has the "Saving Throw: Will negates (object)" and "Spell Resistance: Yes (object)" lines. I initially thought about mentioning that, but:

(object)
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level.
Which means that while convincing, the argument is a bit weak upon further examination.


Note ‘a dead creature’. If a corpse was an object, it wouldn’t be a creature (because the two categories are mutually exclusive), much less a specific subset of creature.
From the same passage, note "[the remains of] a dead creature". Moreover, a hand and a brain are both specific subset of a creature, but are objects: they only become creatures if you turn them into a crawling crawl or a brain-in-a-jar, respectively.

[Blue Jay]

A corpse isn't a dead creature, but the remains of a dead creature: the passage you quoted yourself mentions that upon death "the character's soul leaves his body"; raise dead mentions how "the body of the creature to be raised must be whole" as opposed to just "the creature"; resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm) requires at least a portion that "have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death", not just a portion of the creature; true resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm) "can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed", once again making a distinction between a creature and its body.

This sort of debate gets really silly really fast. For example, I could point out that the phrase "dead body" appears multiple times in the passage about the "dead" condition, indicating that the "dead" condition is clearly something that a body can have, which also indicates that the body must be a creature, since "dead" isn't a condition that can be applied to an object. And I could point out that other spells, such as create undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createUndead.htm) and speak with dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithDead.htm), use "corpse" and "dead body/creature" interchangeably.

...but I hope we can both agree that there's nothing particularly meaningful about this kind of debate. We can list hints and clues till we're both blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that there's no rules text that says "a corpse is an object," and there are plenty of clues and counter-clues, so it's still down to a DM decision (which was my initial argument).

And like I said before, I've used the "corpses as animated objects" trick as a DM, and I'd probably rule in favor of a corpse counting as either a creature or an object, or both, in different scenarios, depending on circumstances.


Moreover, if you decided to interpret corpses as not being objects you'd run into the following dilemma: outside specific exceptions, creatures cannot be sundered. In other words, if corpses are still creatures, they cannot be destroyed - inflicting damage has no additional effects on them, because dead is a binary condition acquired at -10 or lower hit points. Clearly corpses can be destroyed (true resurrection is specifically helpful when this happens), therefore corpses can't simply be creatures with the dead condition. In this case, they're objects.

"The rules lead to a dilemma" doesn't mean the rules don't do the thing that leads to the dilemma: it means the DM needs to decide how to resolve the dilemma if and when it comes up.

[MisterKaws]

crawling crawl

Never knew I could laugh so much at a typo

[Uncle Pine]

"The rules lead to a dilemma" doesn't mean the rules don't do the thing that leads to the dilemma: it means the DM needs to decide how to resolve the dilemma if and when it comes up.
They shouldn't, at least when there is a perfectly valid reading in which the rules don't lead to such dilemma.

[Jack_Simth]

They shouldn't, at least when there is a perfectly valid reading in which the rules don't lead to such dilemma.

Going the other way just leads to different dilemmas. For instance, the DM has a problem when the Cleric tries to roll Knowledge(Religion) on the looks-like-but-really-isn't-undead created by Animate Objects on a corpse: Kn(Religion) doesn't apply. "You don't recognize the creature" is the correct answer whenever you can't make the DC (and the cleric can't - no ranks in Kn(Arcana)... and that's the same answer you'd give for a really powerful undead due to how the DC's scale. But at the same time, by all rights, someone well versed in undead (represented by a good Kn(Religion) check) should know when something is not an undead, too. There's still dilemmas with it, they're just different ones.

[Doctor Awkward]

A logical interpretation of the description of the gentle repose (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gentleRepose.htm) spell would seem to indicate that the D&D rules treat corpses as objects.


Necromancy
Level: Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Corpse touched
Duration: One day/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object)

Saving Throw: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow)

(object)
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level.

[Jack_Simth]

A logical interpretation of the description of the gentle repose (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gentleRepose.htm) spell would seem to indicate that the D&D rules treat corpses as objects.



Saving Throw: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow)
This has been previously mentioned:

I assume MisterKaws is referring to the fact that gentle repose has the "Saving Throw: Will negates (object)" and "Spell Resistance: Yes (object)" lines. I initially thought about mentioning that, but:

Which means that while convincing, the argument is a bit weak upon further examination.

And, honesly, I'm largely going to agree with Blue Jay's:

This sort of debate gets really silly really fast. For example, I could point out that the phrase "dead body" appears multiple times in the passage about the "dead" condition, indicating that the "dead" condition is clearly something that a body can have, which also indicates that the body must be a creature, since "dead" isn't a condition that can be applied to an object. And I could point out that other spells, such as create undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createUndead.htm) and speak with dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithDead.htm), use "corpse" and "dead body/creature" interchangeably.

...but I hope we can both agree that there's nothing particularly meaningful about this kind of debate. We can list hints and clues till we're both blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that there's no rules text that says "a corpse is an object," and there are plenty of clues and counter-clues, so it's still down to a DM decision (which was my initial argument).

It's really just a "DM makes a call and moves on" situation.

[Uncle Pine]

Going the other way just leads to different dilemmas. For instance, the DM has a problem when the Cleric tries to roll Knowledge(Religion) on the looks-like-but-really-isn't-undead created by Animate Objects on a corpse: Kn(Religion) doesn't apply. "You don't recognize the creature" is the correct answer whenever you can't make the DC (and the cleric can't - no ranks in Kn(Arcana)... and that's the same answer you'd give for a really powerful undead due to how the DC's scale. But at the same time, by all rights, someone well versed in undead (represented by a good Kn(Religion) check) should know when something is not an undead, too. There's still dilemmas with it, they're just different ones.
In this scenario my answer to the Cleric as DM would be closer to "You don't recognize the creature as an undead", much like I'd tell to someone trying to identify an ivy plant using Knowledge (Nobility and royalty) that it doesn't look like the heraldic simbol of a noble family.

[Unavenger]

Assuming either all corpses are objects or none of them are, the "(object)" in the saving throw line of gentle repose does indeed imply that corpses are objects, as it can only be used on full or partial corpses. If all corpses were non-objects, then it wouldn't be true that "The spell can be cast on objects".

[Thurbane]

Are you sure about that?

I know a lot of people treat the official FAQ with disdain, but there is this:


Is a dead warforged character’s body subject to sunder attacks, since it is now just an object of wood and metal?
A dead body of any creature (warforged, human, dragon, whatever) is treated as an object, and thus it can be damaged using the rules for “Smashing an Object” (PH 165).
There are no rules for determining the hardness or hit points of a corpse. Most dead bodies don’t have a hardness score, but the creature’s DR (if any) should continue to apply against attacks. Use Table 9–9: Substance Hardness and Hit Points and Table 9–11: Object Hardness and Hit Points in the PH to estimate hit point values

[Doctor Awkward]

This has been previously mentioned:


And, honesly, I'm largely going to agree with Blue Jay's:


It's really just a "DM makes a call and moves on" situation.



Jay's theory doesn't jibe at all with the glossary definition of creature in the PHB:


creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The
terms “creature” and “character” are sometimes used interchangeably.

That again further suggest that, especially for the purposes of adjudicating spell targets, there exactly two possible categories: creatures or objects. It's also very indicative that if something is not a creature then by default it is an object.

[Hackulator]

As always, the fact that the argument exists and there is not a specific statement in the rule book as to this issue means the person saying "it's up to the DM" is correct. People who get mad about that are just unrealistic about the fact that you're not going to have rules to cover every situation in a game which sometimes needs to model literally everything that exists and a bunch of things that don't.

[InvisibleBison]

Not true. In this case it's open and shut. Corpses are objects made apparent by many instances in d&d where a dead creature forms a new body elsewhere while his current body is left to rot and incapable of being raised/resurrected.

The fact that a corpse is an object in some circumstances doesn't mean that a corpse is an object in all circumstances.

[Jack_Simth]

In this scenario my answer to the Cleric as DM would be closer to "You don't recognize the creature as an undead", much like I'd tell to someone trying to identify an ivy plant using Knowledge (Nobility and royalty) that it doesn't look like the heraldic simbol of a noble family.

Which is the DM resolving a dilemma when it comes up. You make a ruling and move on.It doesn't change that the dilemma happened.

[Hackulator]

Not true. In this case it's open and shut. Corpses are objects made apparent by many instances in d&d where a dead creature forms a new body elsewhere while his current body is left to rot and incapable of being raised/resurrected.

That argument is actually so bad that it sounds like an argument for the other side of this debate.

[Uncle Pine]

Which is the DM resolving a dilemma when it comes up. You make a ruling and move on.It doesn't change that the dilemma happened.
The issue is that this dilemma doesn't add to the initial topic: a lack of clarity in the Knowledge skill rules regarding what happens when you attempt a check with the wrong skill doesn't raise an issue regarding corpse being objects, but about the skill rules themselves. We could probably start a whole new thread regarding what would happens if a player tried to identify a perfectly human-looking elan without Knowledge (dungeoneering), but it would be a different thread from this one.

Back on topic, not considering corpses objects leads to absurd consequences (= corpses are indestructible), while doing the opposite doesn't. Thus, it follows we should follow the already quoted rules and consider them objects.

[frogglesmash]

Dead: A character dies when his or her hit points drop to –10 or lower. A character also dies when his or her Constitution drops to 0, and certain spells or effects (such as failing a Fortitude save against massive damage) can also kill a character outright. Death causes the character’s soul to leave the body and journey to an Outer Plane. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device).

The section I've bolded clearly indicates that a dead character, and a dead character's corpse are considered separate entities by the games rules, therefore it's safe to assume that the corpse is an object.
There's also a number of aspects of the d&d canon that support the proposition that the character and th corpse are not the same thing.

1. Upon death, people travel to their god's plain/the plain that best matches their disposition to become a petitioner/demon/devil etc.
2. Becoming a ghost allows you to exist entirely separate from your corpse.
3. A number of spells return you to life, an entirely new body leaving your original corpse to rot.

[Jack_Simth]

The issue is that this dilemma doesn't add to the initial topic: a lack of clarity in the Knowledge skill rules regarding what happens when you attempt a check with the wrong skill doesn't raise an issue regarding corpse being objects, but about the skill rules themselves. We could probably start a whole new thread regarding what would happens if a player tried to identify a perfectly human-looking elan without Knowledge (dungeoneering), but it would be a different thread from this one.


Would you prefer I went with "What's the actual effect, mechanically, if I use Raise Dead after Shrink Object on the party rogue?

There's no shortage of weirdness, there's no direct statements either direction, and there are indirect statements that go both ways.

[Jack_Simth]

The question here is simple. If the spell's target is no longer valid, does it end? y/n
For example. Dominate Person. If a humanoid under this spell gets hit with Polymorph, is he free from the spell?

A better weirdness is probably a fighter corpse->Polmorph Any Object into Great Wyrm Corpse->Raise Dead.


Oh, I was assuming that the Shrink Object spell remains. What's the rogue's strength score?

[Blue Jay]

Jay's theory doesn't jibe at all with the glossary definition of creature in the PHB.

Holding rigidly to that definition will leave your position vulnerable to silly counter-arguments like, "if you order a skeleton to stand still, does it no longer count as a creature, since it's neither living nor active?"


We have polymorph line of spells, mind switch line of powers, magic jar, animate with the spirit, etc. which clearly establishes that body and mind are separate.

I think this is pretty much entirely tangential to the discussion at hand, because mind/body duality has pretty much nothing to do with the definition of a creature. Some creatures don't have a dual nature (elementals and extraplanar outsiders)*, some creatures have only a body and no mind (vermin, most oozes, some constructs, some undead), and some creatures lack a body (incorporeal creatures). So, a body that has no mind might still be a creature.

*It's not actually stated anywhere in the rules, but it seems like the lack of duality in elementals and outsiders ought to make them invulnerable to effects like magic jar, which really shouldn't be able to work if the soul and body aren't separate components. That also raises questions in my mind about how a Fiend of Possession is supposed to work, since it involves a fiend somehow stepping outside of its body.


We have spells like Cloning and Stone to Flesh that create corpses that never was a creature, ever.

I would think that a "corpse," by definition, must be something that was once alive.

The text of the clone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clone.htm) spell actually contains this line: "The spell duplicates only the original’s body and mind, not its equipment." I don't really understand what that's supposed to mean, but it seems relevant.

And stone the flesh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneToFlesh.htm) doesn't create a corpse, either: it says it can "convert a mass of stone into a fleshy substance."

So, I don't think it's fair to equate the things these spells make with a corpse.


We have the undead type, which is immune to every fort save that doesn't also affect objects, so logically if undead is dead instead of undead, it's an object.

That's a complete non sequitur. Just like, "If dead is undead instead of dead, it's a creature." Dead and undead are not the same thing, so you can't reason like this.


We have the definition of an object: Anything without a WIS and CHA score, and as mentioned above, corpses have no INT, WIS, or CHA.

And this is an extrapolation. Here's from the glossary entry for the :

"Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score."
If you can perceive your environment in any way, you have Wis of at least 1. Note that it doesn't say the reverse: it doesn't say "If you have a Wis score of at least 1, you can perceive your environment." In fact, there is at least one spell (sensory depravation) that proves that you can have a Wis score while still being incapable of perceiving your environment.

So, the fact that a corpse can't perceive its environment doesn't necessarily mean that it has no Wisdom score. The "Dead" condition doesn't say what happens to your ability scores, so there's still room for a DM to rule that a corpse still counts as having the creature's Wis and Cha scores.

-----

Upthread, some of us pointed out that there are spells that also refer to corpses as creatures, such as raise dead (]Nonabilities[/url), which has "Target: Dead creature touched." If a dead body is an object and not a creature, then the only way to cast this spell is to go to the afterlife and touch the creature's soul, or something along those lines.

There are also spells like speak with dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithDead.htm) and rejuvenative corpse (non-SRD, so no link), which have "Target: One dead creature" and "Target: One humanoid creature that died within the past week" (respectively), yet both clearly describe magical effects that you imbue into a corpse, not into a living/active creature.

Really, the text refers to corpses as creatures or as objects, whichever is most convenient or useful in a given situation. It's almost certain that different designers were laboring under different assumptions about this, and the fringe cases where it actually matters didn't even cross their minds or come up in playtesting, so it was never fully clarified in the rules text. So, I remain firm in my belief that by RAW, a corpse may count as either a creature or an object (or both) in different situations, and it depends entirely on a DM's call.

-----

Of course, the most important outcome of a debate like this is deciding whether or not spells and effects that target creatures can target [U]dead creatures. I would argue that some of them (probably most of them) don't, but some of them still do. Like, locate creature: the only reason I can think of for why it couldn't target a dead creature is if you come in with the assumption that a dead body no longer counts as a creature.

If a body can count as a creature for the purposes of the raise dead spell, then why couldn't it hypothetically also count as a creature for the purposes of, e.g., the cat's grace spell? Complete waste of a spell, of course, unless there's some weird reason why you need to perform a buff routine before bringing the guy back from the dead. But, why not?

On a (somewhat) related note, it seems that this debate is still a thing in 5e. I found a Sage Advice tweet where someone asked Mike Mearls what would happen if you scry on a person who has died. His response was this:

You get a disconnected line notice. Or a view of the corpse.

source (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/15/if-you-attempt-to-cast-scry-someone-who-has-died-what-happens/)

Granted, Mike Mearls wasn't involved in 3rd edition, and it's hardly an official response, but it still feels indicative of the typical thinking by a game design team.

-----

Anyway, that was a whole lot more text that I intended to write. Sorry.

[Ashtagon]

In my D&D, there are no objects. Literally everything is either a creature or a creature (most usually a construct) with the dead condition.

Yes, even that.

[ben-zayb]

In my D&D, there are no objects. Literally everything is either a creature or a creature (most usually a construct) with the dead condition.

Yes, even that.Does that mean constructs and undead are simply immune to all fort save effects like disintegrate? And that spells such as Locate Item, Shrink Item, and Animate Objects are useless? Speaking of spells, there would be no living spells then, because all effects are creatures.

How do you heal a Fireball, or attack an Antimagic Field, or grapple the ability scores, or bull-rush the alignments, or intimidate the plot, or trip the class features? What happens if movement speed becomes shaken or HP becomes unconscious (the concept of HP, not the creature with HP)?

[Doctor Awkward]

Holding rigidly to that definition will leave your position vulnerable to silly counter-arguments like, "if you order a skeleton to stand still, does it no longer count as a creature, since it's neither living nor active?"

Considering that the word "active" has no fewer than four definitions, at least one of which will still satisfy the PHB definition of creature even when that creature is not currently moving, I would agree such a statement would be silly enough to not even qualify as a rebuttal.

[frogglesmash]

Does that mean constructs and undead are simply immune to all fort save effects like disintegrate? And that spells such as Locate Item, Shrink Item, and Animate Objects are useless? Speaking of spells, there would be no living spells then, because all effects are creatures.

How do you heal a Fireball, or attack an Antimagic Field, or grapple the ability scores, or bull-rush the alignments, or intimidate the plot, or trip the class features? What happens if movement speed becomes shaken or HP becomes unconscious (the concept of HP, not the creature with HP)?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they were being facetious.

[ekarney]

Partially related but there's a good way to get objects that look an awful lot like corpses:
Step 1: Find a statue.
Step 2: Cast Stone to Flesh on it.
Step 3: Animate the object.

Now, non-magical, totally regular statue would definitely be classed as an object, yes?


This spell restores a petrified creature to its normal state, restoring life and goods. The creature must make a DC 15 Fortitude save to survive the process. Any petrified creature, regardless of size, can be restored. The spell also can convert a mass of stone into a fleshy substance. Such flesh is inert and lacking a vital life force unless a life force or magical energy is available. For example, this spell would turn an animated stone statue into an animated flesh statue, but an ordinary statue would become a mass of inert flesh in the shape of the statue. You can affect an object that fits within a cylinder from 1 foot to 3 feet in diameter and up to 10 feet long or a cylinder of up to those dimensions in a larger mass of stone.

This is a very good way to fool clerics. Maybe cram some bones in it for good measure.


A long long time ago I discovered a way to turn objects/items into sentient beings I'll have to try and find that again so that I can statues into sentient psuedo-undead.

[Cliff Sedge]

Corpses are objects.

Reason: DM fiat.

There, settled. ;^)

[Particle_Man]

Rule of cool also enters into it. It made for a very amusing movie scene in stardust where someone effectively cast animate object on a guy’s corpse and the ghost of the guy just shrugged at his ghost brothers when they stared at him.

[unseenmage]

Firstly, on Shrink Item persisting on a revived previously object corpse; I had trouble adjudicating whether a Permanent Telepathic Bond cast on a Construct under the effect of Greater Humanoid Essence persisted after GHE's duration ended. Then someone pointed out that if changing type caused spell effects to end then GHE would cancel itself out as soon as it took effect.

Now that I've typed it out I'm not so sure the above contributes significantly but I'll leave it just in case it sparks an idea.

Secondly, the weirdest things count as objects explicitly for spell effects. Normal non-creature plants are objects for spell effects. And slimes are plants for effects. So you could Shrink Item and Animate Objects a slime or a tree.

Then you could Animate Plants the slime or even full on Awaken the tree and make it a creature.

So yeah, it's my opinion tha magic is weird and it's supposed to do weird stuff and the game is more fun when magic is allowed to do, well, MAGIC, y'know.

Let magic be cool. :smallsmile:

[Jack_Simth]

Secondly, the weirdest things count as objects explicitly for spell effects. Plants are objects for spell effects. And slimes are plants for effects. So you could Shrink Item and Animate Objects a slime or a tree.
Note that creatures with the Plant Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#plantType) are not objects. The wording is "regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive"

But yes, you could use Shrink Object on a small enough tree.

[Malphegor]

A thought occurs that Animate Objects has no HD limit, so for a pseudonecromancer of 14th level or above who's got the XP (or XP reduction cost method) to spare for it being permamancied, this is a decent way to get a big army I suppose.

This is getting more like the spell in Bedknobs and Broomsticks , which allowed one low-ish level witch, some random npc kids, and a clear charisma-based Rogue, take on a decent sized Nazi invasion force (though admittedly most of that fight was a series of mass initimidate attempts, I feel).

(Course, if you're animating a corpse, you might as well animate clothes and armour instead- they cost less to acquire, and you could modularly animate multiple items to Megazord together into something bigger when needed, plus you could wear your minions, which is normally frowned upon in polite society)

[unseenmage]

Note that creatures with the Plant Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#plantType) are not objects. The wording is "regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive"

But yes, you could use Shrink Object on a small enough tree.
Of course, I forget to include that tidbit every time. Thanks.


... and you could modularly animate multiple items to Megazord together into something bigger when needed, plus you could wear your minions, which is normally frowned upon in polite society)[/COLOR]
There aren't any rules for either sadly. Closest you get to wearable Constructs is the Raggamuffyn or Int Magic Items and there just are not any megazord templates/rules. Though the Amalgam Template from Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary comes close.

These ideas are like the whole 'build the effigy hollow with a pilots seat' idea that gets bandied about. Not doable within the rules but cool enough to ask your GM for permission to do the thing.

[Ruethgar]

The question here is simple. If the spell's target is no longer valid, does it end? y/n
For example. Dominate Person. If a humanoid under this spell gets hit with Polymorph, is he free from the spell?

A better weirdness is probably a fighter corpse->Polmorph Any Object into Great Wyrm Corpse->Raise Dead.

But yeah, I haven't seen direct statements in either direction too. I have a DM that rules y because it stops double casting PaO to be permanent and another DM that rules n because there is no rule discussing the matter so nothing will happen.

This would cause Animate Objects to do absolutely nothing but waste a spell slot since they go from object to creature and thus no longer a valid target for the ongoing effect.

[Albions_Angel]

So from what I have read, it seems its massively up to DM interpretation. Corpses are objects for some spells (or act like them), but players and DMs have a hard time making them objects for ALL situations for a number of reasons, and the rules are decidedly unclear.

So perhaps we should move discussion into the territory of trying to define a forum standard ruling?

My vote would be:

Corpses are subject to Animate Object, but as an Animated Table would scuttle around on its legs, magically propelled, and without muscle, the Animated Corpse would be a construct, magically propelled, using its limbs to move itself, but with little care for anatomical realism. Undeath brings some shambling parody of life. Zombies and Skeletons WALK. But an Animated Object just propels itself in the most direct manner. An Animated Human Corpse would not walk. It would, at best, crawl. Maybe flop. Even the head would be used to drag itself along. It might move sideways, like a crab, or even backwards. If it is upright on 2 legs, then the spell has no need of the upper half, so it would be bent over, sideways, or forwards, or backwards. Anyone skilled in Religion would instantly know that it is not necromantic magic driving the creature, and most without that knowledge would be able to guess that something was wrong.

That would be my ruling. It allows the spell (which seems to be the way people are leaning) and neatly deals with the issue of allowing or disallowing knowledge rolls using thematically consistent fluff. That is, until you look at golems with proper arms and legs, but that can be written off as "well, golems are special".

[Uncle Pine]

So from what I have read, it seems its massively up to DM interpretation. Corpses are objects for some spells (or act like them), but players and DMs have a hard time making them objects for ALL situations for a number of reasons, and the rules are decidedly unclear.

So perhaps we should move discussion into the territory of trying to define a forum standard ruling?

My vote would be:

Corpses are subject to Animate Object, but as an Animated Table would scuttle around on its legs, magically propelled, and without muscle, the Animated Corpse would be a construct, magically propelled, using its limbs to move itself, but with little care for anatomical realism. Undeath brings some shambling parody of life. Zombies and Skeletons WALK. But an Animated Object just propels itself in the most direct manner. An Animated Human Corpse would not walk. It would, at best, crawl. Maybe flop. Even the head would be used to drag itself along. It might move sideways, like a crab, or even backwards. If it is upright on 2 legs, then the spell has no need of the upper half, so it would be bent over, sideways, or forwards, or backwards. Anyone skilled in Religion would instantly know that it is not necromantic magic driving the creature, and most without that knowledge would be able to guess that something was wrong.

That would be my ruling. It allows the spell (which seems to be the way people are leaning) and neatly deals with the issue of allowing or disallowing knowledge rolls using thematically consistent fluff. That is, until you look at golems with proper arms and legs, but that can be written off as "well, golems are special".
My issue with this ruling is that there is little reason why an animated corpse would behave any different from an animated statue. Not golems, statues animated by the very same animate objects: statues and corpses both have the same shape, so why one can walk and the other cannot?

It would be much simpler to address the Knowledge issue separately, especially considering that animated corpses and zombies/skeletons aren't the only instance of inherently different creatures sharing thematically consistent fluff, as it's already been mentioned. For example, while it wouldn't solve the issue of a character attempting to identify an elan using Knowledge (local), any Cleric or other character with Spellcraft ranks spotting an animated corpse should automatically be granted a DC 26 check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) to notice that the creature is indeed not a zombie, but rather the result of an animate objects spell.

[Mind's Eye]

It depends on the corpse. Animate object can be cast on a Small or smaller object, so if the corpse is human, it wouldn't work.

EDIT: If your caster level is higher, it is possible to cast it on larger objects. Sorry about that.

[Albions_Angel]

My issue with this ruling is that there is little reason why an animated corpse would behave any different from an animated statue. Not golems, statues animated by the very same animate objects: statues and corpses both have the same shape, so why one can walk and the other cannot?

It would be much simpler to address the Knowledge issue separately, especially considering that animated corpses and zombies/skeletons aren't the only instance of inherently different creatures sharing thematically consistent fluff, as it's already been mentioned. For example, while it wouldn't solve the issue of a character attempting to identify an elan using Knowledge (local), any Cleric or other character with Spellcraft ranks spotting an animated corpse should automatically be granted a DC 26 check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) to notice that the creature is indeed not a zombie, but rather the result of an animate objects spell.

Thats a good point, but I think an obvious solution to the statue thing is rigidity. Statues are self supporting at all points. The magic will cause cracks and act as joints, but the statue's non-mobile bits would still hold itself up. Perhaps the animated corpse's torso flops over at odd angles, and it never turns its head to look at you. Just sort of points its body at you and goes. I would also say a corpse is more prone to falling over as its legs twist in unusual ways. Animate Object must obviously try and maintain balance. Statues walking for example. But statues arnt flopping around all over the place, rapidly shifting their COM. That could lead to scuttling, dragging behaviour.

With the knowledge thing, yeah. If you would rather take the approach that they are nearly visually identical to raised dead, then your ruling on the DC (based off of spellcraft) is the logical extension to that line of thinking.

[frogglesmash]

A there any examples of monsters intended to look like other monsters, and if so, do they have any accompanying rules for knowledge checks?