-6

Given the following two facts, through a strict RAW reading (a DM of course can and likely should handwave this issue), is a typical corpse a valid target of Revivify?

  1. Creatures are Objects.

  2. Revivify states:

You touch [a creature that has died] ...

Where I've marked in brackets what I understand the target to be of the spell.

If the target is a creature that has died, but a corpse is an Object, does that mean most* corpses are invalid targets for Revivify?

This spell should do something, for the material cost and spell slot it does the effects specified. The real question is how and why does it work?

*(Ignoring the standard Animate Objects way of getting around this.)

3 Answers3

26

No, you're splitting hairs.

You write in your first block [a creature that has died], while then bolding a creature that has died. There's a difference there. The phrase "a creature that has died" is different from "a creature", they have different plain English meanings. "A creature that has died" is the target of the spell - which in this case, is an object, and that's fine.

This is also similar to Thomas Markov's Answer to a somewhat similar question. In this case - "If your reading of the spell Revivify is that you cannot Revivify, your reading is incorrect"

Tal
  • 3,906
  • 23
  • 29
  • "Tots are angels who haven't died yet" -John Mulaney – Thomas Markov Aug 17 '22 at 18:51
  • 7
    +1. Taking a sledgehammer to a chair would result in a pile of bits of wood; it's still entirely reasonable to talk about that pile as "a chair that has been smashed apart" even though the pile isn't actually a chair any longer. – minnmass Aug 17 '22 at 18:55
  • 3
    +1 This is a fantastic answer to settle the endless pointing to dead creatures as creatures based on resurrection spells calling them that – Nobody the Hobgoblin Aug 17 '22 at 18:58
  • I like this on the surface, except I'm not sure of the logic. I don't follow how when reading a rule or spell, you can accurately understand the distinction [Noun with condition] versus [Noun] that also has [condition] which I think is the core point with this argument. Is creature in the clause creature that has died something that can and should be considered and evaluated separately from the modifier clause? I think the answer may benefit from giving other examples of Targets that clearly use the former rather than the latter for understanding how to read Targets like this. –  Aug 17 '22 at 19:13
  • The reason I'm quibbling is because this answer seems to specify that a particular way to think about how to read spells is correct. I'd like some reassurance that "the way to think about it" for other spells holds up for when I read future spells. –  Aug 17 '22 at 19:18
  • 3
    @zacm If there are two readings of a phrase, where one makes perfect sense, and the other is nonsensical, there's no argument for the second reading to be considered, IMO. English, as used by the 5e writers is just not that precise, and one must use some simple reasoning to get to an answer. If you find other spells that have targeting criteria that confuses you, I recommend you ask about them separately. – Tal Aug 17 '22 at 19:21
  • 1
    @Tal I make a similar argument in this answer (and another answer linked therein). – Thomas Markov Aug 17 '22 at 19:28
  • @zacm Its not even about how you split the condition. Other rez spells like raise dead use “dead creature” explicitly. As Dan B also states, creature is not a defined game term, so its pretty clear what is meant here. – Nobody the Hobgoblin Aug 17 '22 at 19:29
  • 2
    @Tal This answer of mine is even closer to this question, about whether or not "see invisibility" can see invisible things. – Thomas Markov Aug 17 '22 at 19:30
  • @ThomasMarkov I actually attempted to find that exact answer to link it, but my search skills were lacking. I'll edit to include that as an example. – Tal Aug 17 '22 at 19:32
  • @Tal Unless I misunderstand something, I think you're arguing a RACS (Rules As Common Sense) approach which I absolutely agree for during a game. As someone with an interest in building extensive homebrew, understanding exactly how things are parsed in dnd5e is great for aiding my writing's clarity and conciseness which is why I prefer strict RAW answers generally-- not to use in a game but to develop a skill in understanding what actually is written and how it might be interpreted (particularly to those who don't parse English like I do!) Your Common Sense might not always agree with mine! –  Aug 17 '22 at 19:35
  • @zacm Sure, "common sense" may not always look exactly the same for two people, but concluding that a feature that a feature just doesn't do anything ever is nonsense. – Thomas Markov Aug 17 '22 at 19:39
  • @ThomasMarkov I raise you Primeval Awareness (ok I kid). Seriously though, if as written a feature is non-functional because of a typo or misunderstanding (which is common in homebrew), understanding how and why is great to avoid accidentally making the same mistake twice. I agree that from a DM perspective running a game or even a Player, features should always do something. –  Aug 17 '22 at 19:42
  • 1
    @zacm you can call it RACS if you want, but in this case, the alternative is complete nonsense. As I stated, English is just not that clear, and sometimes you do have to interpret things. There's no getting around it. Perhaps the lesson you should take away is not "I need to be legalistically precise such that it isn't possible to misinterpret my homebrew" but "I need to make it obvious what should happen, such that players do the right thing without too much thought" – Tal Aug 17 '22 at 19:43
  • 1
    @Tal I suggest something similar about homebrewing in this answer from this morning. – Thomas Markov Aug 17 '22 at 19:44
  • @Tal In this case, I think the real issue is that my "Common Sense" understanding was that corpses had to be creatures because features do something, otherwise why would they specify creature instead of a corpse or dead body? Needless to say a number of spells function differently if corpses are creatures. It's clear-cut the spell does something, why and how though are less clear. –  Aug 17 '22 at 19:52
  • 1
    @zacm I'm sorry, it's perfectly clear. It's only a problem if you separate out one phrase into two phrases. The spell indicates that you "Touch a creature that has died[...]". This is a thing that can obviously be done. "Why didn't they specify corpse or dead body" is not a question we can answer, but we can make common-sense rulings that spells do things that they're supposed to do. – Tal Aug 17 '22 at 19:57
  • @Tal: Appreciate your patience. To sum up your answer as I understand, we accept corpses are Objects. We read the spell. The spell must do something and if there exists any interpretation where the spell does something, that is what we choose. We read the Target and realize there does exist an interpretation where there is a valid Target, we discard any other reading that causes the feature to not work, thus we accept the target clause being one phrase. Does that sound reasonable? Again, thank you for your time and responsiveness. –  Aug 17 '22 at 20:14
  • @zacm that sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure that's how I would've put it, exactly - perhaps I'd rather say, if there's a reading that causes the feature to not work we discard it, rather than discarding all other options after finding a single option that causes the feature to work. As a final step, after discarding all obviously wrong choices (that cause the feature to not work), if you still have two options that seem equally obvious to you, that's a good time to make a post here :) – Tal Aug 18 '22 at 02:32
5

Yes, it still works

There are no rules about what "counts as a creature." That is a plain-English term and not a game term.

There is no rule that says a corpse is not a creature. The accepted answer you linked above tries to give us a definition based on "examining how the word is used throughout the text" but that doesn't make it a rule. The answer itself admits:

It's important to note that "creature" does not get a precise definition in the rules.

Because there isn't a definition of "creature," just use the plain English reading of the spell, after which it should be obvious that it works.

(Note that "object" does appear to be a game term, see here.)

Dan B
  • 89,473
  • 14
  • 195
  • 337
  • Relevant. I'll also add there are some rules about what a creature and Object are, but they are minimal. –  Aug 17 '22 at 19:04
  • @zacm, what do you mean by "relevant"? It feels like perhaps you didn't read the second paragraph of my answer, which is about why the answer given in that link isn't a rule. – Dan B Aug 17 '22 at 20:02
  • You said that there are no rules about what counts as a creature, that it's a "plain-English" term. What is linked is an attempt to define what a "creature" is and means in 5e which seems relevant and potentially contradictory, I'm not clear on if you're arguing creature means something different than the accepted answer in the link. To clarify the commented link and the link in the main post are distinct. –  Aug 17 '22 at 20:05
  • 1
    @zacm, What is linked is not a rule. It's just some guy posting on a Q&A site. WaxEagle is very wise, but WaxEagle is not an official source of D&D 5e rules. – Dan B Aug 17 '22 at 20:08
2

Spells Are Intended To Have Effects

If you rule that corpses aren't valid targets of the spell on the linguistic technicality, how does the spell work at all? What's your more restrictive class of targets that are still affected-- what is intersection of "creatures that have died..." and "not corpses"? I would argue that this myopic view yields the empty set, and the spell doesn't work.

But that is obviously pointless, because spells are intended to have effects.

It's not a productive question in any sense I can understand.

But if you really need an answer to this question, the answer is, "The spell works because that is the way it is written; it is a specific rule, self-contained in the text, trumping whatever more general framework it gets shoehorned into. The class of targets is defined by the spell to be 'creatures that were recently slain' regardless of whether those recently slain creatures are otherwise regarded as objects."

Novak
  • 43,163
  • 8
  • 97
  • 180