Defining "creature" and "object"

[Raishoiken]

Somewhat tied to my question on intelligent magic items and golems; is there anywhere that gives a definitive parameters for what either of these things are? i'm aware the monster manual's section on nonabilities calls out that if you don't have either wisdom or charisma, you automatically don't have the other and are an object and explicitly not a creature. golems and intelligent magic items, however, seem to be a weird mix of both.

is there any way to tell for sure if the terms are technically mutually exclusive? outside of using standard real world dictionaries that is

[Psyren]

Well, if you want to get technical... golems and intelligent items are both described as "magic items" but I don't think they're ever referred to as objects. So D&D may make a distinction between the two terms. Not all magic items have to be objects, in other words.

[Raishoiken]

Well, if you want to get technical... golems and intelligent items are both described as "magic items" but I don't think they're ever referred to as objects. So D&D may make a distinction between the two terms. Not all magic items have to be objects, in other words.


This is definitely true, but there isn't anything that's concrete enough in words to make being a creature and object mutually exclusive other than a few spots i'll have to track back down that sort of imply it. So while a magic item isn't necessarily an object, a creature such as a construct isn't necessarily only a creature. In fact, with the description (which i understand isn't automatically a prescription) for the construct type does technically cover artificial creatures and "animated objects" which doesn't necessarily only refer to the specific creature, seeing as it also means objects that are moving about that aren't magically animated

edit: working atm will come back

[Fouredged Sword]

The definition I have always used is that creatures have HD. Objects simply have hit points.

A golem is a creature. It has XdY HD. Those HD grant HP.

An object will also have HP, but it's HP are not granted by HD. Rather an object is something who's HP is determined by some other variable like it's thickness. For example a simple wooden door has 10 HP. It doesn't have HD though. It has 10 HP because the rules say it has 10 HP.

A door is an object.

A golem is a creature.

An intelligent item is an object. It does not have HD.

[Raishoiken]

The definition I have always used is that creatures have HD. Objects simply have hit points.

A golem is a creature. It has XdY HD. Those HD grant HP.

An object will also have HP, but it's HP are not granted by HD. Rather an object is something who's HP is determined by some other variable like it's thickness. For example a simple wooden door has 10 HP. It doesn't have HD though. It has 10 HP because the rules say it has 10 HP.

A door is an object.

A golem is a creature.

An intelligent item is an object. It does not have HD.

Valid interpretation

[reddir]

I’ve always thought that investing xp into something was imbuing it with some life-force, as is needed for magic items and golems. EDIT— not necessarily consciousness, just life-force.

Objects don’t have this.

[Psyren]

This is definitely true, but there isn't anything that's concrete enough in words to make being a creature and object mutually exclusive other than a few spots i'll have to track back down that sort of imply it. So while a magic item isn't necessarily an object, a creature such as a construct isn't necessarily only a creature. In fact, with the description (which i understand isn't automatically a prescription) for the construct type does technically cover artificial creatures and "animated objects" which doesn't necessarily only refer to the specific creature, seeing as it also means objects that are moving about that aren't magically animated

edit: working atm will come back

Creature and Object are definitely mutually exclusive (applying the nonabilities citation).

The issue though is that you're conflating magic item and object.

Basically, a magic item that is also a creature, isn't an object. It's a construct.

[Crake]

An intelligent item is an object. It does not have HD.

Uhhh....... The DMG/SRD seems to disagree with you:


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

Wisdom and Charisma scores are the only defining difference between being an object and being a creature. The ability to conceive the world around you, and the ability to distinguish yourself from the world.

[Lagtime]

The answer seems simple enough:

A creature has at least some mental ability scores, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

For example an Animated Table has a Wis and Chr of both one, so it's a construct. Khazid'hea("Cutter") the sword from the Drizzt books has Int 17, Wis 10, Cha 17, so it's a construct.

An object has no mental ability scores.

[InvisibleBison]

The answer seems simple enough:

A creature has at least some mental ability scores, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

For example an Animated Table has a Wis and Chr of both one, so it's a construct. Khazid'hea("Cutter") the sword from the Drizzt books has Int 17, Wis 10, Cha 17, so it's a construct.

An object has no mental ability scores.

The rules say that a thing with no Wisdom or Charisma is an object. They don't say that all objects lack Wisdom and Charisma scores, and the converse of a true statement is not necessarily true (eg, everyone in France is in Europe, but not everyone in Europe is in France). Thus, it's theoretically possible for there to be an object with Wisdom and Charisma scores, though I don't know of any.

[Bronk]

Another interesting tidbit: In Deities and Demigods, the divine power “Mind of the Beast” includes the line “Subjects turned into plants become objects.“

[Psyren]

I believe that trees are objects in game terms.

[KillianHawkeye]

I believe that trees are objects in game terms.

Yes. At the very least, the description of the Plant type notes that "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."

[Vizzerdrix]

"Object" is a fake term. Their are none in D&D. Everyone knows that everything is a mimic.

[reddir]

"Object" is a fake term. Their are none in D&D. Everyone knows that everything is a mimic.

SHHH!!!!!

Most of them just want to be and sleep. As long as we don't provoke them they just act like spoons and tables and houses.

Just don't bother them and we get to have homes and furniture.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

"Object" and "creature" are not mutually exclusive, although they usually are, in practice.

Intelligent items are generally both, as is anyone under the effects of metamorphosis to turn them into an object. There are other spells and effects that force something into both categories, such as tree shape (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/treeShape.htm).

Typically, if something has a Wis/Cha score, it's a creature. If not, it's an object. That doesn't preclude something from both having a Wis/Cha score and being an object, but those are edge cases and typically are both. (Basically, I'd treat it as either a creature or an object, whichever is more beneficial at any given time, but that'd be a houserule, since I don't think this is covered anywhere.)

[Psyren]

Intelligent items are creatures, not objects.

Tree Shape doesn't actually make you a tree, you just look like one. "The closest inspection cannot reveal that the tree in question is actually a magically concealed creature."

[unseenmage]

Intelligent items are creatures, not objects.
...
Cool. Then they're subject to creature size space restrictions and can have the Simulacrum spell cast on them, yes? :smallbiggrin:

[Zanos]

Aren't corpses simultaneously objects and dead creatures? I remember several spells that only work on corpses reference (object) in their save line, but 'Dead' is also a condition that applies to creatures. Raise Dead is target 'creature touched' while gentle repose is targets a corpse but has (object) in its saving throw line. A corpse also obviously has no Wisdom or Charisma but is also a creature with the 'dead' condition so...

Either you can be both a creature and an object at the same time or something weird is going on.

[Psyren]

Cool. Then they're subject to creature size space restrictions and can have the Simulacrum spell cast on them, yes? :smallbiggrin:

Not sure what you mean for the former. For the latter - they're creatures, why not? Could you not create a simulacrum of a golem or animated object?

[unseenmage]

Not sure what you mean for the former. For the latter - they're creatures, why not? Could you not create a simulacrum of a golem or animated object?

For the former;
How many medium creatures can occupy one combat space unimpeded? One character wearing intelligent magic item full plate and wielding an intelligent magic item greatsword would be three medium creatures in one space.

For the latter even the extreme TO game I was in banned Sim on intelligent magic items. Without HD there's no additional cost to just photocopying more and more of whatever intelligent magic item one wants. Add in custom intelligent magic items and figurine of wondrous power intelligent magic items and it gets worse and worse. Heck, in PF intelligent magic items can just have legs.
Give just one intelligent magic item at will sim and you wind up needing to calculate how fast they can defeat opponents by the sheer mass of them.
TLDR Simulacrum on intelligent magic items is too cheesey even for me.

[Psyren]

For the former;
How many medium creatures can occupy one combat space unimpeded? One character wearing intelligent magic item full plate and wielding an intelligent magic item greatsword would be three medium creatures in one space.

1) A weapon or armor's "medium" size category refers to the optimal size of the creature wielding it, not the item's own size. Or did you think a medium dagger was 5ft long?

2) Creatures designed to be wielded or worn by other creatures are obviously a specific exception to the general rule on space sharing.



For the latter even the extreme TO game I was in banned Sim on intelligent magic items. Without HD there's no additional cost to just photocopying more and more of whatever intelligent magic item one wants. Add in custom intelligent magic items and figurine of wondrous power intelligent magic items and it gets worse and worse. Heck, in PF intelligent magic items can just have legs.
Give just one intelligent magic item at will sim and you wind up needing to calculate how fast they can defeat opponents by the sheer mass of them.
TLDR Simulacrum on intelligent magic items is too cheesey even for me.

Not what I asked, I asked about golems and animated objects.

For sim of an intelligent item, they're at least masterwork so their component would have a cost associated and therefore not be eschewable or in a pouch.

[Vaern]

The PHB's glossary doesn't have a description for objects, but it does define a creature as being "A living or otherwise active being, not an object." This description seems to indicate that being a creature and being an object are mutually exclusive. It also says under the description of character that "every character is a creature (as opposed to an object)."

Golems are creatures. They have hit dice. Most have wisdom and an obligatory charisma of 1; numbers vary from one sourcebook to another, but they do appear to all have these ability scores. I don't see any reason why they should be considered objects, other than the fact that they happen to be crafted.

Intelligent items are more iffy. Their description says that they can be considered creatures and to treat them as constructs, but it doesn't say that they are truly a construct type creature. They're described as having certain qualities like characters, but they aren't exactly declared to be characters. You might say that they are creatures, but only in the same way that a monk's fists are manufactured weapons.


Aren't corpses simultaneously objects and dead creatures? I remember several spells that only work on corpses reference (object) in their save line, but 'Dead' is also a condition that applies to creatures. Raise Dead is target 'creature touched' while gentle repose is targets a corpse but has (object) in its saving throw line. A corpse also obviously has no Wisdom or Charisma but is also a creature with the 'dead' condition so...

Either you can be both a creature and an object at the same time or something weird is going on.

I remember seeing a thread asking whether a corpse is considered an object or a creature and bringing up the same example of spells having seemingly disagreeing details in their description. It seems to me that whether the corpse is considered a creature or an object depends on the context of the spell.

Spells which target a "corpse" and treat the subject as an object, like gentle repose and create undead, affect the corpse directly, whether that be by preventing its decay or animating it.

Spells which target a "dead creature" and treat the subject as a creature, like reveille and various resurrection spells, will contact or otherwise interact with the spirit of the dead creature. The corpse has no wisdom or charisma, but the spirit being channeled by the spell does. It's the soul that's actually being affected by the spell, and the corpse you're targeting is merely a conduit.

The glossary entries indicating that something must be either a creature or an object rather than both at once look pretty cut-and-dry, but the whole body-and-soul concept really muddies the waters when it comes to corpses in particular. At least, that's my take on why different spells can see a corpse in different ways. Whether or not that's what was intended when they were writing these spells is another question.

[Fouredged Sword]

1) A weapon or armor's "medium" size category refers to the optimal size of the creature wielding it, not the item's own size. Or did you think a medium dagger was 5ft long?

2) Creatures designed to be wielded or worn by other creatures are obviously a specific exception to the general rule on space sharing.



Not what I asked, I asked about golems and animated objects.

For sim of an intelligent item, they're at least masterwork so their component would have a cost associated and therefore not be eschewable or in a pouch.

A dagger no, but full plate sized for a medium creature is roughly the same size as the creature it is designed for.

Though I don't like the wording on intelegent items being creatures.


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


This wording is unnecessarily imprecise. Intelligent items are ether creatures or they are not. They are ether objects or they are not. "can be considred" suggests a degree of flexibility in the terms that is problematic in a rules system.

[Psyren]

A dagger no, but full plate sized for a medium creature is roughly the same size as the creature it is designed for.

Sure, which is why I wrote #2.


Though I don't like the wording on intelegent items being creatures.


This wording is unnecessarily imprecise. Intelligent items are ether creatures or they are not. They are ether objects or they are not. "can be considred" suggests a degree of flexibility in the terms that is problematic in a rules system.

In my view you and the OP are massively overthinking it. Intelligent Items are creatures, that happen to share some of the characteristics of objects. Same with animated objects and (to a lesser extent than the first two) golems. That's it.

[Fouredged Sword]

Sure, which is why I wrote #2.



In my view you and the OP are massively overthinking it. Intelligent Items are creatures, that happen to share some of the characteristics of objects. Same with animated objects and (to a lesser extent than the first two) golems. That's it.

I realized my mistake when someone came in with the actual rule cite. I am just bitching about bad rule writing and planning my next campaign to involve an intelligent adamantine weapon that uses unlimted uses of alter self to take the form of a human, but retains their natural hardness.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I realized my mistake when someone came in with the actual rule cite. I am just bitching about bad rule writing and planning my next campaign to involve an intelligent adamantine weapon that uses unlimted uses of alter self to take the form of a human, but retains their natural hardness.Alter self would allow an adamantine weapon to turn into a creature of the [Error: "Object" not found] type.

I...don't think this works unless the weapon has feats and takes Human Heritage or Human Blood, Dragonwrought, Otherworldly, or some other feat that grants you a type, since "Object" isn't a creature type. But if you can take one of the above...


Intelligent items are creatures, not objects.

Tree Shape doesn't actually make you a tree, you just look like one. "The closest inspection cannot reveal that the tree in question is actually a magically concealed creature."It also says, "you are able to assume the form of a Large living tree or shrub or a Large dead tree trunk with a small number of limbs" and "To all normal tests you are, in fact, a tree or shrub." Wouldn't that mean you take the form of a living object (non-creature plant), and any tests to show that you aren't a living object (such as spells that affect living objects, or ones that affect humanoids or whatever) would treat you as such?

After all, in a high-magic world, using magic for "normal tests" would be normal...right?

[Psyren]

Alter self would allow an adamantine weapon to turn into a creature of the [Error: "Object" not found] type.

Isn't the type construct?



After all, in a high-magic world, using magic for "normal tests" would be normal...right?

I read "normal" in this context to mean "nonmagical," similar to effects that distinguish between normal fire and magical fire.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Isn't the type construct?Intelligent items are "treated as constructs," so possibly, although they aren't actually constructs. YMMV. However, intelligent items (that did not become so through unusual means, such as metamorphosis) do not have any HD, so alter self likely wouldn't work anyway, since alter self determines forms you can take using your HD (which in this case is '--').


I read "normal" in this context to mean "nonmagical," similar to effects that distinguish between normal fire and magical fire."Normal" in a fantasy world that's high in magic would likely include magic, since magic is a normal part of everyday life. If they wanted "nonmagical" they'd have said it (or possibly "mundane"?).

[Psyren]

Intelligent items are "treated as constructs," so possibly, although they aren't actually constructs. YMMV. However, intelligent items (that did not become so through unusual means, such as metamorphosis) do not have any HD, so alter self likely wouldn't work anyway, since alter self determines forms you can take using your HD (which in this case is '--').

Even if they aren't actually constructs and are merely "treated as" - that should mean that alter self treats them as constructs too.

The HD point is noteworthy though.


"Normal" in a fantasy world that's high in magic would likely include magic, since magic is a normal part of everyday life. If they wanted "nonmagical" they'd have said it (or possibly "mundane"?).

That logic goes both ways - you could argue that if they intended "normal" to be setting-dependent they'd have said that too.

In any event, since there is no RAW definition for "normal tests", it becomes a GM call.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Even if they aren't actually constructs and are merely "treated as" - that should mean that alter self treats them as constructs too.

The HD point is noteworthy though....Actually, I looked it up. Alter self isn't based on your HD like polymorph (and every single related spell and effect) is. It's based on your CL.

I think it actually could work, assuming CL /= HD, anyway. But only for constructs. Which is actually quite nice, given that animated objects can be just about anything.


That logic goes both ways - you could argue that if they intended "normal" to be setting-dependent they'd have said that too.

In any event, since there is no RAW definition for "normal tests", it becomes a GM call."Normal" is overrated anyway. I'd rather have "interesting" most times. And not by the Chinese Proverb definition.

[Necroticplague]

Somewhat tied to my question on intelligent magic items and golems; is there anywhere that gives a definitive parameters for what either of these things are? i'm aware the monster manual's section on nonabilities calls out that if you don't have either wisdom or charisma, you automatically don't have the other and are an object and explicitly not a creature. golems and intelligent magic items, however, seem to be a weird mix of both.

is there any way to tell for sure if the terms are technically mutually exclusive? outside of using standard real world dictionaries that is

I don't see any ambiguity in intelligent magic items or golems. Both of those are Constructs, not Objects. Golems do have Wisdom and Charisma, and their statblocks clearly indicate the Construct type. Intelligent Magic items, meanwhile, have all mental scores, and their rules explicitely say they are creatures just to be extra clear on the issue.

Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs.
So I'm really not seeing how those two add any ambiguity to the creature-object distinction set up by the descriptions of Wisdom and Charisma when they follow them to a T. One set up rules indicates lacking Cha and WIS makes you and objects (and you are otherwise a creature), and the other shows things with CHA and WIS being creatures.