Whereas nothing is yet explicitly well defined for creature and object I believe the intent at this time is:
No. Nothing is considered an object and a creature simultaneously.
As defined by various Tweets from Crawford:
- Creature: Crawford
that a creature has a type as defined in the introduction to the
- A petrified
is still a creature as well as no condition changes your type.
- Intelligent magical
are also explicitly objects because they don't have a type,
presumably from the first point.
- Contrary to J Foster's claim on the verbiage of the resurrection
spells. In English a group of words describing something almost
always has a single word name. So when the text says it is targeting
a "creature that has died", what that means is you are targeting a
corpse/cadaver which has been repeatedly stated as an object.
tweet it was a creature which means it is not any longer such.
Conversely, a construct is a creature that was an object.
- Objects are defined as "discrete, inanimate objects" in the DMG on
p246. This does allude that in game terms that a house plant would be
considered an object.
- Even the targeting for spells seem to allude that they are separate
things on PHB 204 (emphasis mine).
A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures,
objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
- True Polymorph seems to be an edge case, the fact that if you are
polymorphed into an object you don't remember anything and that you
gain all the statistics of the new form would, to me, indicate that
for the duration you were in fact an object and not a creature.
- Animate Object
spell seems to
use unfortunate and misleading verbiage as well. Although, the spell does explicitly state that the objects in question become creatures under your control until they are reduced to 0 hit points. The prolonged use of the word object is probably used for short hand as opposed to designating that it is an object. To me this seems to solidify that something can be one or the other but not both.
I assume your question is stemming from a question on targeting. Xanathar's guide has some of the clarifications indicated from the Jan 19, 2017 Podcast which concerns itself with Twin Spell and targeting, it is well worth the listen and might help you out with your game.
In the end if your DM rules that there can be something that fits both definitions regardless if I would personally disagree it is your table. You can argue it but ultimately the decision is theirs.
Clarification on the English portion of my argument in bullet 4:
This was an attempt to take the wording from the spell "a creature that has died" and link it to a word that has game connotations "corpse" this is to make a transitive argument as follows:
- "a creature that has died" = "corpse/cadaver" -English
- "corpse" =
"object" -Game Terms
- "a creature that has died" = "object" -Transitive association
Something with a creature type in its stat block per JC is a creature but objects don't have creature types therefore something cannot be both a creature and an object at the same time.
I think of this as a state. A spell, as an example, can change your state to that of an object for its duration or grant objects a creature state for its duration but once the duration expires your state reverts to its norm.
Animate Dead grants a corpse (object) a creature type, it doesn't change an existing creature type from one thing to another.