D&D 5E ugh another zombie question

[animal chubs]

ok last zombie related question i swear... Can a necromancer lose control over a zombie using dispel magic or anti magic sphere?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

By RAW, no. However, I like that idea enough that I may steal it and make it a "yes."

 

[MasterTrancer]

No, since Animate Dead has an "Instantaneous" duration.

 

[Sage Genesis]

The Antimagic Field spell says that creatures created by magic temporarily wink out of existence. Strictly speaking that would also include zombies, assuming they were created by the Animate Dead spell. That's probably not really what the spell is meant to do as it didn't function this way in 1e, 2e, or 3e... but I've come to accept that what 5e says and what 5e means are sometimes quite different.

 

[airwalkrr]

That's a negative, ghost rider. (Pardon the pun.)

Given the precedent set by previous editions, the fact that animate dead does not actually "create" a creature (it animates an existing corpse or bones), and is an instantaneous effect that continues even if the caster loses control (e.g. by not casting the spell again the next day), I would rule that anti magic field does not prevent a caster from controlling a zombie within the area. But I can see legitimate arguments either way (e.g. it is the spell that gives the caster the ability to command the creature). An FAQ or errata would help clear this up, but in my mind it seems clear enough: animate dead is an instantaneous effect, which means after the spell is cast, the caster is not using magic to control the zombie. Magic was simply the means to animate and/or gain control, and magic is not required to keep the zombie animated or controlled.

The same would apply with spells like fabricate which require raw materials. The spell puts the pieces together and it's done. An anti magic field or dispel magic won't separate a fabricated item back into its raw materials because there is no magic in the object any more. A wall of stone, by contrast, requires concentration, and disappears when the spell is over. The wall of stone's very existence is maintained by magic, and thus it is susceptible to being dispelled or winking out in the area of an anti magic field.

That's the way I see it. YMMV.

 

[pemerton]

If there's going to be an anti-magic shell spell, I feel that it should do what it says on the tin.

The idea that a wizard's control over animated undead is not magical is bizarre to me. Are they just good mates with a non-magical telepathic hook up?

Likewise, the idea that an animated zombie or skeleton is not a creature created by magic strikes me as pretty bizarre. How was it created? By a spell. What could be more magical than that?

 

[Cernor]

Likewise, the idea that an animated zombie or skeleton is not a creature created by magic strikes me as pretty bizarre. How was it created? By a spell. What could be more magical than that?

It was animated by a spell, but the corpse is still good ol' flesh and blood (and bones and decay...). So while the zombie wouldn't wink out of existence in an AMF, I'd say that the magic animating it would be rendered inert while it remains in the zone.

 

[pemerton]

It was animated by a spell, but the corpse is still good ol' flesh and blood (and bones and decay...). So while the zombie wouldn't wink out of existence in an AMF, I'd say that the magic animating it would be rendered inert while it remains in the zone.

Sure. So in an AMF the zombie turns back into an inert corpse.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Given the precedent set by previous editions, the fact that animate dead does not actually "create" a creature (it animates an existing corpse or bones)

First of all, precedent of previous editions is hardly relevant. Unlike most RPGs, D&D tends to make some pretty sweeping changes over the years as the editions tick by. Entire classes and paradigms have been radically overhauled from one edition to another, so what a past edition did isn't very persuasive IMO.

Second, the idea that Animate Dead doesn't create creatures strikes me as a very tortured reading. A spell is cast, now there is a creature that didn't exist before. Pretty clear cut if you ask me. The fact that it does so from certain materials doesn't diminish that fact. To suggest otherwise is like saying Fireball doesn't deal damage because it merely creates the flames which in turn might inflict damage; a hair-splitting exercise in an attempt to deny what is plain as day.

Magic was simply the means to animate and/or gain control, and magic is not required to keep the zombie animated or controlled.

I mean this as an honest question but... have you read the 5e Animate Dead spell recently? Because you quite explicitly do need to keep casting the spell daily to maintain control. I don't know how much more "magic is required to keep it controlled" you can get than that.

 

[airwalkrr]

First of all, precedent of previous editions is hardly relevant. Unlike most RPGs, D&D tends to make some pretty sweeping changes over the years as the editions tick by. Entire classes and paradigms have been radically overhauled from one edition to another, so what a past edition did isn't very persuasive IMO.

Second, the idea that Animate Dead doesn't create creatures strikes me as a very tortured reading. A spell is cast, now there is a creature that didn't exist before. Pretty clear cut if you ask me. The fact that it does so from certain materials doesn't diminish that fact. To suggest otherwise is like saying Fireball doesn't deal damage because it merely creates the flames which in turn might inflict damage; a hair-splitting exercise in an attempt to deny what is plain as day.



I mean this as an honest question but... have you read the 5e Animate Dead spell recently? Because you quite explicitly do need to keep casting the spell daily to maintain control. I don't know how much more "magic is required to keep it controlled" you can get than that.

Precedent is certainly the weakest argument I made, but I think it has a place considering 5e was intended to bring back fans of previous editions. Nevertheless, it is not a strong point of contention.

IMHO, a dead creature is still a creature. Look at the description of raise dead; the term "dead creature" is right there so obviously there is some precedent in this edition for such a concept. In this situation (a zombie), the creature is not being created by a spell, rather the creature is being changed in some way. If you wanted to make a technical argument for skeletons, I suppose you could, since all you need is a "pile of bones." I would read this as meaning an intact or mostly intact skeleton, however to maintain consistency. If you prefer to rule the other way, I admit you have a reasonable argument from a lawyer's point of view.

I find it interesting you bring up fireball, since it, too, is an instantaneous effect. If a creature killed or injured by a fireball enters an anti magic field would you also rule that the damage caused by the fire goes away? The key here is that this is an instantaneous effect, not one with a duration.

And finally, yes, I did actually read the spell description in its entirety (right before posting I might add to make sure it was fresh in my head). You and I simply have a difference of opinion on how to interpret the rule. My opinion is that, as an instantaneous effect, there is no magic sustaining the control. It merely grants control instantaneously much like magic missile does instantaneous damage or mending instantaneously sews a torn garment. An anti magic field would not undo the magic missile damage or undo the sewing from mending. Why should we expect a similar instantaneous effect to operate differently? That the caster gains control for 24 hours does not mean the spell has a duration by the D&D definition. Its duration is still categorized as instantaneous. The dead creature is animated into a zombie which will remain in such a state even after the caster loses control. You appear to disagree with that interpretation, and I cannot really fault you for it, since it is nebulous enough to allow for more than one possibility.