D&D 5E Fun with Glyphs of Warding

[ThePolarBear]

The target is clearly "a dead creature."

If it simply said "creature," than your concern over whether a corpse is a creature or an object may be relevant, but it clearly states "dead creature." There is no ambiguity here.

What? If it only said "creature", you could resurrect a living being. How that would work i have no idea. It would create MORE problems, not less - but it would be clear.
The fact that the creature is dead is what causes me to have issues to understand if said target should be considered broadly as a object or as a "creature" as many many many other spells do. There are also other types of implications on such a ruling: If a dead creature is still in fact a creature, i can true polymorph it (assuming it has not 0 hp, like if death has come due to old age) following rules related to creatures and not objects. Or target it with spells that only affect creatures and not objects. There are lots of things that can go wrong and that i've not even started considering. That's why, for me, the "dead creature" is not " a creature", no matter how strange it seems.

Again, is half a creature a creature? If a creature was killed by an axe bisecting it, would you allow Resurrection on one of the halves? Would it still be a creature?
Personally, i prefer to avoid the problem and have that "dead creature" be " a corpse", object. No need to think about anything else. But this makes it impossible via RAW of Glyph of Warding to use Resurrection in it. It targets an object, not a creature.

The area where their is ambiguity is that the Resurrection spell states that "You touch a dead creature." Who is "you" when cast by a glyph? Is the object that glyph is on the "you" so that you can read it as "after touching the corpse to the glyph, the glyph casts resurrection..."
I would say that is how it works. A glyph shouldn't impart spell-casting ability to someone, rather it causes the magical effects of a spell stored there to go off. In effect, a spell caster has already cast the spell but by casting it into the glyph the spells effects are delayed until a trigger occurs.

And i agree. "You", however, is still the caster, at least for me. Glyph delays the spell, frees up concentration, extends the "range" in a sense. But it does not changes the source of a spell. Should someone with some sort of ability check "Whos was the Fireball that killed this dude" on a Glyph Triggered Fireball, it would still know the name of the Caster.

What the DM has to rule on is whether all components for casting thee spell can be met so that it can be cast as part of creating the glyph.

The spell is cast as part of casting the Glyph. Materials are spent when a spell is cast. So materials are spent as part of casting Glyph of Warding.

With resurrection, it would be logical to rule that since you don't have the corpse with you at the time of the casting, and since the casting requires that you touch "a dead creature", then you can't cast the resurrection spell as part of creating the glyph.

Why? Resurrection does not require that. It requires you to touch the creature only after the spell "has completed" It would be as requiring the target of a Sacred Flame all along.
I can cast Resurrection with no corpse at all. It would be mighty stupid, but a corpse is not a "requirement" so to say.

If the Glyph is targeting a dead creature and that is a creature, it does not matter when i have the corpse. I can put the trigger "when a corpse touches the Glyph" or something more restrictive like "when a corpse of a creature that is has been dead for no more than 99 years and died for any cause but old age" and it would be a fine trigger, indipendant of me having any corpse at all. Heck, even a "if my dead corpse ever touches this Glyph" would be a valid trigger!

The Glyph specifically states that if the spell targets a creature, then the target of the spell becomes the creature triggering the Glyph. In this case the body itself is still considered a creature, so it is a valid target AND the target of the spell in the Glyph. It would end up receiving the effects of Resurrection.

But this all hinges on "is a dead creature a creature?". Raw, at least.

But then again, it enters an area that's spellcasting timings... really really DM dependant, so...

On the other hand, in a high-magic setting, I think that it would be appropriate for a DM to allow it.

Oh absolutely. A DM has all the cards to make anything possible. My whole problem in fact is resolved on a simple DM decision (dead creature=object). But that is the part where i'm unsure that it's actually RAW, but i believe it actually being so - if anything else, for simplicity's sake.

 

[Eltab]

If you have an hour to prepare in a dungeon, and you think you can lure the right kind of creature into the glyph, then you can fill the glyph with either Magic Circle or Banishment. For Banishment, the affected creature gets a save; but if an extraplanar creature fails that save, they're gone for good (since the spell lasts for the full minute with no concentration needed). An inverted Magic Circle is even stronger; it works on more creature types, and there's no save! In addition to trying to use glyphs in a dungeon (always a risky proposition), you can also use them to fortify your wizard's personal stronghold. (Especially if you're worried about rival wizards sending demons your way.)

You just solved a plot problem I was having: instead of building a mega-dungeon layer by layer, just have unwanted PC intruders teleported down to the basement for BBEG to take care of them.
(The PCs will be known to be carrying Signature Equipment, so the trap will be set to go off when IT comes through the door.)

Thanks !

 

[Pjack]

Eltab: Glad I could help!

More fun with Glyph of Warding: since Counterspell states that it interrupts a creature casting a spell, the spell in the glyph can't be counterspelled! (Extrapolated from one of Jeremy Crawford's recent tweets.)