Timeline for Is a dead creature's body considered an "object"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30 at 22:10 | history | bounty ended | TheFallen0ne | ||
| Jun 19 at 18:34 | comment | added | ProphetZarquon | Both phrases refer to the remains of a creature, in the same way ashes might be the remains of an incinerated chair. If intent is that "a creature that has died" is not a creature, the rules could say that, or at the very least, the spell could be errata'd to say "the remains of a creature that has died", which is in keeping with other phrasings used & does not preclude the spell from working by RAW. Absent such corrections or any definitive statement that a dead creature is no longer a creature, intent that a dead creature is a creature & also becomes an object, is reasonable to infer? | |
| Aug 17, 2022 at 21:18 | comment | added | GcL | The phrases "a creature that has died" and "dead creature" are synonyms for "corpse". They are not "a creature" in the same way "a completely smashed to bits chair" is not "a chair". | |
| Mar 7, 2021 at 10:07 | comment | added | ProphetZarquon | This is actually the most concise & to the point answer, & it uses canonical references. Crawford's statements not withstanding logical review in this case, I believe this answer is more correct and more useful than the current forerunner posted by Conley | |
| Jan 10, 2020 at 7:06 | history | answered | user-781943 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |