animate objects and dead creatures

[Caliban]

I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not saying that the OP should ignore Rule 0. I'm simply engaging in a discussion of the RAW.

You may not be trying, but you are succeeding almost effortlessly. Bravo.

The OP didn't request a RAW only debate, but you are trying to force other people to treat it as one anyway. RAW isn't the sole purpose of this forum (check the forum guidelines:http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=155143 ).

You are not the final arbiter if what is RAW and what is not. Don't try to force your RAW views on other people.

Like it or not, many people on this forum regard the FAQ as a legitimate source of rules and/or clarifications. For them, the FAQ is "RAW" if they want it to be.

 

[Obrysii]

Typo, a question for you.

Would a large chunk of calcium carbonate, cast in the shape of a bone, be a valid target for Animate Object?


As well, I think I have found a part of the Animate Object spell that ends this debate:

An animated object can be of any nonmagical material.

Unless you consider corpses to be magical material, they are a valid target of animate object.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think they don't change because the rules don't say they do. There's nothing in the "Dead" condition description (or anywhere else that I know of) that mentions attribute scores changing as a result of death. Why do you think that Wisdom and Charisma (or any other attribute) scores change after death? Please cite rules.
[...]
Except for the fact that you're still dead. As you pointed out, being dead has no effect on your Con score. Nor any others.

Fair enough. Have I ever mentioned, I just love to discuss RAW?

I can see how you're arguing this case, however:
There are lots of other things the 'dead' condition does not mention. For me the decisive thing it doesn't mention is this:

It doesn't mention anywhere that you can no longer act!

It mentions you no longer heal, nor can you be healed magically. Your soul leaves the body and you start to rot.

Unless I am mistaken, none of these things actually imply you're no longer able to move, act, etc.!

So my conclusion would be: Unless you also apply some common sense (in my experience corpses have a difficult time acting in any meaningful way), RAW doesn't really allow you to play the game.

I concede that I won't be able to convince you otherwise regarding the issue at hand by just using RAW as a basis.

 

[Voadam]

Excellent! This is what I was looking for! Something that defines the size categories of objects. Was there a table with it? If not, we can use the Creature Size Table. Now, we know from the Weapon Size section that a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than its wielder. Now consider the athach. Referring to the size table from before, we see that the two morningstars he carries (Large objects, since they are one-handed Huge weapons) are at least 8 ft. long and 500 lbs heavy. Unfortunately for him (with his 26 Strength), carrying both of them will exceed his heavy load capacity. Even carrying one would put him well into his medium load. But maybe he's an aberration (pun intended).

How about a Cloud Giant? With his Strength of 35, his maximum carrying capacity is 3,200 lbs. But the Gargantuan morningstar (Huge Object) he carries weighs at least 4,000 lbs. It's all he can do to lift it and stagger around.

I could keep going through the monster entries, but I think I've made my point: clearly there are some problems equating creature size categories and object size categories. In my opinion, more than are caused by not considering corpses objects.

Actually it is not a definition that one handed weapons are one size category smaller. It is a generalization.

"In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder."

D&D math does get wierder the farther away from the human scale of medium that you get.

 

[Voadam]

We also know that armor and weapons only double in weight as you go up in size. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#armorDescriptions
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponDescriptions

Footnote 1 from the weight categories for both.

This only explicitly states the case for small and large equipment though.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My second concern is that if creatures can only be "living or otherwise active," the term "dead creature" (used frequently in the books) becomes oxymoronic. If it's dead, it can't be a creature, and if it's a creature, it must not be dead.

Is a natural armor bonus a type of armor bonus? Is a monstrous humanoid a type of humanoid?

'Dead creature' can be a term in its own right that doesn't imply inclusion in the category of 'creature'.

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

As well, I think I have found a part of the Animate Object spell that ends this debate:

An animated object can be of any nonmagical material.

Unless you consider corpses to be magical material, they are a valid target of animate object.

This is the most convincing argument I've seen so far. In my opinion, this trumps the creature/object debate via the primary source rule. I'll concede that a corpse can be affected by animate objects.

Is a natural armor bonus a type of armor bonus? Is a monstrous humanoid a type of humanoid?

'Dead creature' can be a term in its own right that doesn't imply inclusion in the category of 'creature'.

I'd be inclined to agree with you if 'dead creature' had a specific game definition like both 'monstrous humanoid' or 'natural armor bonus' do. Since it doesn't, we have to assume they're referring to a creature that is dead. Unfortunately, that's a contradiction in terms. According to the definition, something must be "living or otherwise active" to be considered a creature. If it's dead, it doesn't qualify (at least, that's the argument I'm hearing from the people who believe a corpse is an object); ergo, there's no such thing as a dead creature. It's like a sharp marble or a bright shadow.

Here's the crux of my dilemma. Either a creature stays a creature after it has died (in which case it's an invalid target for spells like grease or shatter), or a creature becomes an object after it has died (in which case it's an invalid target for raise dead and its derivative spells). I prefer the former interpretation. I don't believe the implications of the latter were the intent of the designers.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'd be inclined to agree with you if 'dead creature' had a specific game definition like both 'monstrous humanoid' or 'natural armor bonus' do. Since it doesn't, we have to assume they're referring to a creature that is dead. Unfortunately, that's a contradiction in terms. According to the definition, something must be "living or otherwise active" to be considered a creature. If it's dead, it doesn't qualify (at least, that's the argument I'm hearing from the people who believe a corpse is an object); ergo, there's no such thing as a dead creature. It's like a sharp marble or a bright shadow.

Here's the crux of my dilemma...

Your dilemma is something you manufactured. "Dead creatures" do exist, are referenced many times in the rules, and are not, as you correctly concluded, creatures. It's what my english teacher would have called an open compound word with antithetical lexeme.

In other news, French Fries are not French, pineapples are not apples, guinea pigs are not pigs, and peanuts are not nuts. OTOH, I do have a sharp marble. I call it a d4.

 

[mvincent]

peanuts are not nuts.

Next you'll be claiming that they aren't peas either.

... and don't get me started on butterflies. That made for one bad experience when I was a child.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

... guinea pigs are not pigs ...

Nope - they are, in fact, piggles, and are ridiculously cute, especially when they purr.