Sage Advice 3/21/16 Exploding druids and antimagic field vs zombies and cure wounds

The answer to the druid and metal armor is excellent. Not so much the ruling itself, but the clear way it explains that classes have both story and game elements, and some classes have more story elements than others.

 

[AverageCitizen]

[MENTION=57845]AverageCitizen[/MENTION]:

Maybe that's a good reason why animate dead is considered such a vile, despicable spell in most cultures. More so than any other "necromancy" spell even. Because it doesn't just make automatons from once living bodies. It steals back the basest, primal essence of the deceased's soul, trapping it in the undead form, and binding it to obey the caster. And since enough of the deceased's essence becomes bound on the material plane, they remain unable to move on to any afterlife. Even if the now animated body was dead a while, its former soul long since moved on, it might even pull their spirit back from wherever, disrupting its eternal place in the heavens. Which is potentially quite harsh.

Yes, I think that works quite well. The only relevant requirement in the raise dead and resurrection spells is that the soul be "free" which leaves the status of a skeletons soul up to the DM. I think some of the specific undead, like ghouls or wraiths, may specifically state that they are trapped and can't be raised. The raise dead spell says it cannot be used to return an undead creature to life, but I think that is saying you can't target a shadow with it more than speaking to the state of a zombie's soul.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

"Spells—they’re what dispel magic is about."

So why didn't they just call it "Dispel" and be done with it?

Actually, I think they should go the other way on the name length and call it Phandaal's Instantaneous Arcane Nullification.

(Bonus points if you know who Phandaal is.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I am specifically rejecting the idea of skeletons etc. not being sustained by magic. The rest of the stuff you guys mentioned is take it or leave it, but also beside the point. Cure wounds is a terrible analog because it magically restores the target to an equilibrium it is naturally able to maintain. Equilibrium for a skeleton is rotting on the ground. They aren't dragons. They aren't Pegasi. They are an unholy abomination animated by MAGIC into a pale semblance of life. There is nothing self-sustaining about them. There is no ecosystem, fantastic or otherwise, that could produce them. That isn't trivia, it is the whole point of the creature. You can't remove it without doing significant violence to the idea. Just like wild spells should die when they go into an anti magic field, so should skeletons. Maybe not zombies, and probably not a lot of other types of undead, but definitely skeletons.

Alternately, skeletons are animated by negative energy in exactly the same way that humans are animated by positive energy. When you deplete the positive energy of a human, and they fail their death saves, they turn into an object, which changes a bunch of rules for how magic interacts with what used to be their body. (E.g. items on the body can now be summoned via warlock abilities/Drawmij's Instant Summons.)

 

[SkidAce]

I guess you could say that the spell summons a spirit and binds it to the remains and then it makes sense.

That's how we have worked it for years. Shadows are summoned and bound to the skeletal remains.

This binding forces them into a poor fit for a container, so they don't have the shadows' special abilities or intelligence.

Summon one into a "better" container with a higher level spell....who knows what evil you may get.

As a plus, since the shadow is fused with the skeleton, you can't dispell it.

Makes for interesting story hooks.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

While I have no problem with the lore of druids not wearing metal armor, I have a serious problem with the lack of even a suggested concrete penalty for violating it. It singles them out as the sole class in such a condition. Paladins come in second, but at least the books provide guidance as to what might happen if they violate their code, and imply that a DM could choose to allow for an imperfect paladin who struggles with his code but is working at it.

I'd like to see druids treated the same way. I hate design inconsistency. The analogy with a vegetarian is a poor analogy, because it is the simplest thing in the world for a vegetarian to eat meat. They lose the right to be called "vegetarian", but there are no special powers attached to it, and one could argue that they could still call themselves a "struggling vegetarian". The religious examples are better, and the consequence could then be exactly the same as for a cleric. They incur divine displeasure, with consequences up the DM--but they are still a cleric (or insert real world religious examples).

To say a druid that wears metal armor isn't a member of the druid class is like saying that a fighter that stops fighting isn't a member of the fighter class. It's actually worse than that example, because fighting is literally the name and core definition of the fight-er class, while not-wearing-metal-armor-er is neither the name nor definition of the druid class. It's absurd. They might be a bad druid, they might be unable to gain further levels in the class, they might lose powers, and they might be ejected from druidic hierarchy. But unless we go old-school and mimic the paladin turning into a fighter rule (but what class would a druid turn into?) they are most definitely still a member of the druid class.

Of course older editions did this stuff, and it was accepted as how things were. But most of the restrictions went away (clerics can wield whatever they want now) or were converted to concrete mechanical consequences (rogues suffer penalties to certain skills/features in heavier armor, wizards have trouble with spells in armor, etc) throughout the editions. The druid restriction is out of harmony with the rest of 5e. It is a wacky holdover that has no place in the 5e PHB, at least as it is stated. Honestly, I'd really like to hear at least one of the designers say something like, "yeah, if we had thought it through we probably would have phrased it more like the paladin's code".

I am specifically rejecting the idea of skeletons etc. not being sustained by magic. The rest of the stuff you guys mentioned is take it or leave it, but also beside the point. Cure wounds is a terrible analog because it magically restores the target to an equilibrium it is naturally able to maintain. Equilibrium for a skeleton is rotting on the ground. They aren't dragons. They aren't Pegasi. They are an unholy abomination animated by MAGIC into a pale semblance of life. There is nothing self-sustaining about them. There is no ecosystem, fantastic or otherwise, that could produce them. That isn't trivia, it is the whole point of the creature. You can't remove it without doing significant violence to the idea. Just like wild spells should die when they go into an anti magic field, so should skeletons. Maybe not zombies, and probably not a lot of other types of undead, but definitely skeletons.

In some editions skeletons were just bony constructs. But in 5e that isn't the case. They aren't even mindless. They are intelligent and evil beings infused with negative energy in place of the positive energy that animates living creatures. In fact, the Monster Manual says that skeletons are empowered by a "hateful undead spirit." You're certainly free to run it differently, but it isn't a matter of changing how a spell interacts, it is actually changing the nature of the creature. In such a case you are probably better off treating them as a construct than an undead. Except then you have the problem that constructs aren't dispellable either.

Alternately, skeletons are animated by negative energy in exactly the same way that humans are animated by positive energy. When you deplete the positive energy of a human, and they fail their death saves, they turn into an object, which changes a bunch of rules for how magic interacts with what used to be their body. (E.g. items on the body can now be summoned via warlock abilities/Drawmij's Instant Summons.)

Yes.

 

[phantomK9]

I my game, I'm perfectly fine with simply saying that a druid wearing metal armor can't use any shapeshifting. If you want to shapeshift, take off the metal armor.

 

[AverageCitizen]

They are ... evil beings infused with negative energy in place of the positive energy that animates living creatures. In fact, the Monster Manual says that skeletons are empowered by a "hateful undead spirit." You're certainly free to run it differently, but it isn't a matter of changing how a spell interacts, it is actually changing the nature of the creature. In such a case you are probably better off treating them as a construct than an undead. Except then you have the problem that constructs aren't dispellable either.

It doesn't say that. The MM says they are animated by a "dark magic" and "sinister vitality", which is not the same thing. It says the same thing about zombies. My point is that the MM left this stuff to interpretation and this article is narrowing the possibilities for the sake of spell interaction, which is unnecessary because Dispel Magic wouldn't interact anyway, because it's not a spell.

That's how we have worked it for years. Shadows are summoned and bound to the skeletal remains.

This binding forces them into a poor fit for a container, so they don't have the shadows' special abilities or intelligence.

Summon one into a "better" container with a higher level spell....who knows what evil you may get.

As a plus, since the shadow is fused with the skeleton, you can't dispell it.

Makes for interesting story hooks.

It doesn't say that at all.

This spell creates an undead servant. Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range. Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature. The target becomes a skeleton if you chose bones or a zombie if you chose a corpse (the GM has the creature’s game statistics).

My point is that the MM left this stuff to interpretation and this article is narrowing the possibilities for the sake of spell interaction, which is unnecessary because Dispel Magic wouldn't interact anyway, because it's not a spell.

 

[Maxperson]

Wtf is "closet meat"?

A dead rat usually.

 

[SkidAce]

It doesn't say that at all.

My point is that the MM left this stuff to interpretation and this article is narrowing the possibilities for the sake of spell interaction, which is unnecessary because Dispel Magic wouldn't interact anyway, because it's not a spell.

I know it doesn't. I was explaining how we like it.

I understood your point.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I know it doesn't. I was explaining how we like it.

I understood your point.

Oh, my bad completely. I misread your post.