The description of the 1st-level spell Thunderous Smite (PH 282) states the following:

[...] Additionally, if the target is a creature, it must succeed on a Strength saving throw or be pushed 10 feet away from you and knocked prone.

How is a creature defined? Without this spell, I would have defined literally everything as a creature, but then why would this distinction exist?
Just so you can't push a boulder away, which 99% of DMs wouldn't allow this spell to do anyway? That seems odd to me.

I couldn't find anything online that defines creatures as something other than everything, so I came here hoping that someone would have an answer.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Was there some specific fault you found with the answer you linked to? Or do you just not like the answer? \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Jan 4 '18 at 20:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ like I said, if "creatures" include simply everybody, why would there be a distinction in the spell description? Could be just an accident of course, but like I said, that seems odd. \$\endgroup\$ – PixelMaster Jan 4 '18 at 20:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ <comments removed> Please remember that comments are for clarifying content, not posting small or incomplete answers. Please only use answer posts to submit answers on the site. If this question still needs answering, work to get it reopened rather than use comments to circumvent the hold. Thanks! \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 4 '18 at 21:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @PixelMaster Is your question then not actually about what the definition of “creature” is (and therefore, is not answered by the linked question about its definition), but rather what distinction Thunderous Smite is making by having a separate sentence calling out targets-that-are-creatures? \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 4 '18 at 21:35
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Might the question be reformatted as, "What are the possible non-creature targets of the Thunderous Smite spell?" with a bit of additional clarification to the effect that the "duplicated" question's answer has with a very limited citation base and makes several claims about categories (such as size, CR, constructs, etc.) with no actual rules citations (and, that some of those are the product of very recent edits, still without citation)? An emphasis on RAW may help... \$\endgroup\$ – doomtwig Jan 5 '18 at 6:25

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.