If you look up the definition for an Object, it specifies that it is “a nonliving, distinct thing” — such as a corpse.
However, the definition of Creature does not say it must be living. So, a corpse is both a creature and an object.
There are even creatures that have never been living — such as constructs — and thus are also objects.
There’s no rule that says dead creatures can’t take action. You’ll usually become Unconscious first, but instant death effects including massive damage bypass that. So you can just keep playing.
This was clearer in 3.5, where it actually had an entry for the Dead condition which did not say you couldn’t take actions.
There’s no rule saying a dog can’t play!
Dogs aren’t a playable race so they can’t have class levels. But there is no rule saying dogs can’t learn languages. And they can be Sidekicks, but that’s more a rule specifically designed to allow them to play. There’s also no rule saying they can’t wield weapons. One-handed and two-handed weapons both require hands to use, but there aren’t actually any weapons listed as one-handed.
That’s on the same level as disintegrate making you able to play a sentient pile of dust.
I think nonliving creatures may be more specific versions of objects then, since I couldn’t find any reference of creatures not being considered objects (because who would even say that, it should be obvious if you use your brain), but it also means that if a spell or ability only allows you to target or create objects and has no specification in regards to creatures, undead and constructs are valid targets by RAW.
Ah, the fallacy of overly literal reading of rules.
Which is why I hate the “spells only do what they say they do” argument. There’s a lot of things that should logically happen when you cast certain spells that aren’t specifically written in the rules.
I think limiting spells to mostly do what they say they do (while ignoring obviously stupid interactions like the one above) is actually somewhat balancing, because it otherwise increases the power and utility of casters over martials even further.
I think that the best thing about tabletop games is that you are not bound by someone else’s rules and can decide on the spot what works and what doesn’t. It makes for more interesting plays that just adhere to the words written on the page.
A few years ago, me and my party were stuck in the sewers with giant invisible spiders stalking us. When they attacked us, the Paladin threw some water around so that the water hitting the invisible bodies would make them visible. There’s no specific rule for that, but it made for a cool moment.
At the same time, even if Firebolt explicitly states that it sets objects on fire and Investiture of Flame doesn’t, if the Sorcerer wants to burn stuff with it, I’ll allow it.
From experience, the only way to somewhat balance martials and casters is to either give the martials broken stuff, or play homebrew classes that actually care about giving them interesting features to play with.
Allowing the players to interact with the environment using their tools (as long as they don’t specifically infringe on established rules) doesn’t change the power dynamics between casters and non-casters. Sure, it technically increases the utility of casters a bit more, but chances are that they have countless tools for the job anyway. The martials are still eating dirt miles behind them.I think that’s a big strength of tabletops too, but I sometimes wish people would adhere a bit more to the rules, because while some things are not covered by them, changing the things that are is a good way to get me to be very hesitant to do anything because I can’t rely on achieving anything close to the intended outcome if I can’t rely on the rules.
So just buff the martials! Easy peasy
Properly buffing martials without creating different problems in the process is actually far harder than it seems I’d say.
But yes other than that it’s a good solution as well.
it would require a pretty comprehensive rework, yes. You’d need to (as an example):
-
give martials something really cool that they can do to compete with the “cool factor” spells offer (I think having a large variety of weapon options would help, especially if the weapons all feel different and have different mechanical effects)
-
Let martials use their physical prowess to dynamically interact with the battle (They can already do things like shoving enemies, but a really robust list of tricks that characters can do with their athletics, acrobatics, stealth, medicine, etc. skills could really help level the playing field. After all, spells are mostly useful for their utility and not just raw damage.)
-
Make spells less all-or-nothing using multiple saving throws or varying levels of success (this lets you nerf the “top end” of spells while keeping their overall power the same)
-
give martials more ways to cheat the action economy, like more actions per turn on average than casters get
-
make more enemies resist magic but weak to normal weapons, or make more enemies weak to certain kinds of physical damage (slashing, piercing, silver, etc.)
-
give martial characters “backdoors” into magical skill (for example, maybe characters with a high arcana skill can do magic as long as they have time to prepare - like rituals instead of combat magic - or they could use arcana and a satchel full of scrolls/wands to cast magic even as a martial)
-
give characters more access to ability score increases on their weaker ability scores so they don’t have to optimize as heavily around only one ability score
… just to name a few I’d have in mind
I think the last one is not really necessary. Characters having flaws is part of the design philosophy. Martials actually have a small advantage here as it is easier for them to build around their most important abilitiescores.
Don’t knock it till you try it. Making MAD builds more viable is really great for the game. Obviously characters will still have a couple low scores, but it’s nice not to suck at everything except one thing.
Okay. Giving it a second thought I think specifically giving them the ability to increase one of the mental stats may be a good idea, so long as the philosophy is that they can be as good at it as casters and not just not horrible. Maybe giving them the choice of boosting all ability-Checks and saving throws of one of those by 1 every ASI, but under the premise that this + the stat bonus doesn’t exceed 5.
-
worrying about balance is another literalism imo. You can make anything fun and enjoyable with the right story, items, and creativity
“Balance” gets abused a lot, as a term. It means multiple things, and it results in people talking past each other.
Intra-party balance – that is, everyone in the party being approximately equally capable – is important for most tables because most people resent getting clowned on by their so-called allies.
Creature/encounter balance is not about forcing the fights players get into to be fair, but about having a reliable way of telling how hard the fight will be. That knowledge is not an obligation to make the fights fair.
Yes you can. I’ve just made the experience that people enjoy balanced games more than unbalanced ones.
Taking thing literally (especially in an RP game) just shows a lake of creativity. Table top books like DND have always been a framework to give you ideas. everything else is between you and the players
Well that’s a very general accusation for a stance that could have a multitude of reasons.
nah, dnd insists on being specific but isn’t particularly well written
they can either not write their rules to be so specific or proof read them better
Bro, first wall of force and now this? I need to sub to this community lol
I touch myself
Whatever floats your boat man.
That’s going to require a LOT of touching.
Okay. I’ll admit: I don’t get it.
Floating a boat generally requires liquid. A LOT of liquid.
Ah. Yes. Good point. Guess they’ll have to work overtime.
oh so that’s what elves do in the other 4 hours of the long rest
This reminds me of the necromancers are slavers discourse.
Howso?
The argument was that its done without the consent of the deceased.
Hm. Then I don’t see the connection to this meme. Maybe I’m just stupid though.
The whole corpses as objects
Ah I see. But farfetched, but I get it.
