Can a Necromancer reuse the corpses left behind from slain undead?












11












$begingroup$


I’ve recently been doing some builds for Necromancers for a one-shot we’ll be doing. I have been struggling to find anything that mentions how to keep up with all of the corpses you will need for the Animate Dead and Create Undead spells.



There seems to be an indefinite period a corpse can stay a corpse within the 5E RAW.



I also haven’t found anything stating that undead that are killed again cannot be animated again, within RAW.



Once my zombie or skeleton dies and becomes a corpse again, may I reuse the now corpse according to RAW?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Are the players going to directly engage with the logistical problem of acquiring and transporting corpses, or is it just backstory? I'm not seeing why you need to answer this or at what level of detail.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wells
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Sorry I didn’t realize I only our Create Dead. My bad! I fixed that really quickly. Well it’s not purely backstory, it’s for 2 reasons. 1st Reason is should I need to acquire more corpses of course I can always go on a killing spree, but that typically draws attention to myself so if I can’t reuse corpses then I need to find out where to gather my meat shields.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    (Cont.) 2nd, I’ve been designing some character concepts in general for a cursed Barbarian tribe that use necromantic magic to use undead to help tend to the fields and do the menial labor and be a bulk of the fighting force so the Barbarians can focus on important tasks and don’t have to worry about being wiped out before they can remove the curse. So this helps in that facet as well.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday
















11












$begingroup$


I’ve recently been doing some builds for Necromancers for a one-shot we’ll be doing. I have been struggling to find anything that mentions how to keep up with all of the corpses you will need for the Animate Dead and Create Undead spells.



There seems to be an indefinite period a corpse can stay a corpse within the 5E RAW.



I also haven’t found anything stating that undead that are killed again cannot be animated again, within RAW.



Once my zombie or skeleton dies and becomes a corpse again, may I reuse the now corpse according to RAW?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Are the players going to directly engage with the logistical problem of acquiring and transporting corpses, or is it just backstory? I'm not seeing why you need to answer this or at what level of detail.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wells
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Sorry I didn’t realize I only our Create Dead. My bad! I fixed that really quickly. Well it’s not purely backstory, it’s for 2 reasons. 1st Reason is should I need to acquire more corpses of course I can always go on a killing spree, but that typically draws attention to myself so if I can’t reuse corpses then I need to find out where to gather my meat shields.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    (Cont.) 2nd, I’ve been designing some character concepts in general for a cursed Barbarian tribe that use necromantic magic to use undead to help tend to the fields and do the menial labor and be a bulk of the fighting force so the Barbarians can focus on important tasks and don’t have to worry about being wiped out before they can remove the curse. So this helps in that facet as well.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday














11












11








11


1



$begingroup$


I’ve recently been doing some builds for Necromancers for a one-shot we’ll be doing. I have been struggling to find anything that mentions how to keep up with all of the corpses you will need for the Animate Dead and Create Undead spells.



There seems to be an indefinite period a corpse can stay a corpse within the 5E RAW.



I also haven’t found anything stating that undead that are killed again cannot be animated again, within RAW.



Once my zombie or skeleton dies and becomes a corpse again, may I reuse the now corpse according to RAW?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I’ve recently been doing some builds for Necromancers for a one-shot we’ll be doing. I have been struggling to find anything that mentions how to keep up with all of the corpses you will need for the Animate Dead and Create Undead spells.



There seems to be an indefinite period a corpse can stay a corpse within the 5E RAW.



I also haven’t found anything stating that undead that are killed again cannot be animated again, within RAW.



Once my zombie or skeleton dies and becomes a corpse again, may I reuse the now corpse according to RAW?







dnd-5e spells undead necromancy






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









V2Blast

25.6k488158




25.6k488158










asked yesterday









BloodySprinklesBloodySprinkles

3009




3009












  • $begingroup$
    Are the players going to directly engage with the logistical problem of acquiring and transporting corpses, or is it just backstory? I'm not seeing why you need to answer this or at what level of detail.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wells
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Sorry I didn’t realize I only our Create Dead. My bad! I fixed that really quickly. Well it’s not purely backstory, it’s for 2 reasons. 1st Reason is should I need to acquire more corpses of course I can always go on a killing spree, but that typically draws attention to myself so if I can’t reuse corpses then I need to find out where to gather my meat shields.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    (Cont.) 2nd, I’ve been designing some character concepts in general for a cursed Barbarian tribe that use necromantic magic to use undead to help tend to the fields and do the menial labor and be a bulk of the fighting force so the Barbarians can focus on important tasks and don’t have to worry about being wiped out before they can remove the curse. So this helps in that facet as well.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday


















  • $begingroup$
    Are the players going to directly engage with the logistical problem of acquiring and transporting corpses, or is it just backstory? I'm not seeing why you need to answer this or at what level of detail.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wells
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Sorry I didn’t realize I only our Create Dead. My bad! I fixed that really quickly. Well it’s not purely backstory, it’s for 2 reasons. 1st Reason is should I need to acquire more corpses of course I can always go on a killing spree, but that typically draws attention to myself so if I can’t reuse corpses then I need to find out where to gather my meat shields.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    (Cont.) 2nd, I’ve been designing some character concepts in general for a cursed Barbarian tribe that use necromantic magic to use undead to help tend to the fields and do the menial labor and be a bulk of the fighting force so the Barbarians can focus on important tasks and don’t have to worry about being wiped out before they can remove the curse. So this helps in that facet as well.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday
















$begingroup$
Are the players going to directly engage with the logistical problem of acquiring and transporting corpses, or is it just backstory? I'm not seeing why you need to answer this or at what level of detail.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
yesterday




$begingroup$
Are the players going to directly engage with the logistical problem of acquiring and transporting corpses, or is it just backstory? I'm not seeing why you need to answer this or at what level of detail.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
yesterday












$begingroup$
Sorry I didn’t realize I only our Create Dead. My bad! I fixed that really quickly. Well it’s not purely backstory, it’s for 2 reasons. 1st Reason is should I need to acquire more corpses of course I can always go on a killing spree, but that typically draws attention to myself so if I can’t reuse corpses then I need to find out where to gather my meat shields.
$endgroup$
– BloodySprinkles
yesterday




$begingroup$
Sorry I didn’t realize I only our Create Dead. My bad! I fixed that really quickly. Well it’s not purely backstory, it’s for 2 reasons. 1st Reason is should I need to acquire more corpses of course I can always go on a killing spree, but that typically draws attention to myself so if I can’t reuse corpses then I need to find out where to gather my meat shields.
$endgroup$
– BloodySprinkles
yesterday












$begingroup$
(Cont.) 2nd, I’ve been designing some character concepts in general for a cursed Barbarian tribe that use necromantic magic to use undead to help tend to the fields and do the menial labor and be a bulk of the fighting force so the Barbarians can focus on important tasks and don’t have to worry about being wiped out before they can remove the curse. So this helps in that facet as well.
$endgroup$
– BloodySprinkles
yesterday




$begingroup$
(Cont.) 2nd, I’ve been designing some character concepts in general for a cursed Barbarian tribe that use necromantic magic to use undead to help tend to the fields and do the menial labor and be a bulk of the fighting force so the Barbarians can focus on important tasks and don’t have to worry about being wiped out before they can remove the curse. So this helps in that facet as well.
$endgroup$
– BloodySprinkles
yesterday










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

Maybe for skeletons, but other undead probably can't be re-reanimated



It's important to note that the spells you mentioned can create undead minions out of a specific type of remains: not just any kind of corpse can be animated by these spells (you can't raise an undead dragon or minotaur with them, for example): they are specifically designed to create undead out of dead humanoids.



The spell Create Undead contains the following text (PHB p. 229, bold added):




Choose up to three corpses of Medium or Small humanoids within range.




The spell Animate Dead has a similar requirement (PHB p. 212, bold added)




Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range.




It might not be obvious why this matters at first. It might seem that if you raised a zombie from a corpse of a humanoid, and then that zombie was destroyed, the resulting new corpse is still a dead humanoid. But a destroyed zombie or ghoul is not a humanoid corpse: it is the corpse of an undead!



As such, most destroyed undead are not valid targets of the animate dead or create undead spells.



Why might skeletons be an exception?



The text of animate dead is somewhat grammatically unclear about its possible targets. At first glance, it seems that the "pile of bones" or "corpse" must both have belonged to "a Medium or Small humanoid." But if we delete the term about the corpse, the resulting sentence:




Choose a pile of bones... of a Medium or Small humanoid within range.




becomes grammatically awkward. The pile is the thing being said to be "of" the humanoid, which is strange since humanoids don't contain piles of bones. If they had said "a pile of the bones of a Medium or Small humanoid", or "a pile of bones from a Medium or Small humanoid", it would have removed this grammatical awkwardness (by stressing that the bones, not the pile, are the thing once inside a humanoid). But this is not the structure of the sentence we are given.



However, there is one other way to remove this awkwardness, which is to assign the "humanoid" requirement only to the corpse, not the pile. This makes the sentence regarding the pile of bones less awkward, like so:




Choose a pile of bones... within range.




This is a grammatically valid reading of the original sentence, given its ambiguity (and the grammatical strangeness of the other reading). Thus, you could conclude that the bones could come from creatures other than humanoids, such as an undead.



Note that your DM may take issue with this reading. After all, it could permit you to animate a skeleton from a pile of bones from a mouse or a dragon, which is likely outside of the scope of the intended use of this spell. And since the RAW on this issue rely on an ambiguity, your DM will need to sign off on this. But if they do, you could possibly use animate dead on a destroyed skeleton to restore it to a foul semblance of life once again. After all, although the pile of bones are no longer the bones of a humanoid, they are certainly still a "pile of bones."






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the help! You’re right I wasn’t thinking of it about Creature type just that they were a Humanoid so the corpse is still a Humanoid corpse but what you’re saying makes sense.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Interestingly, Crawford said that Animate Dead "can bring them back" twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/596185201417461760, although this is an old tweet, and it is unclear what he means by "can bring them back".
    $endgroup$
    – Vylix
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    and you are right. Animate dead changes the type of the corpse. Even revivify cast on a killed zombie brings back the zombie, not the original creature. twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/709791324656902144 so the killed zombie must be a corpse of undead, not humanoid.
    $endgroup$
    – Vylix
    16 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @Vylix Crawford's tweet about revivify is what got me thinking in this direction. Since his tweets have been downgraded from "official rulings" to "possible previews that may become official rulings", I've tried to keep them from being the basis of my answers, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Thanks for pointing out the "can bring them back" tweet too. I hadn't seen that one! And yeah, it's ambiguous what exactly is meant by that (though my initial impression is that the two tweets certainly seem contradictory).
    $endgroup$
    – Gandalfmeansme
    13 hours ago













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143832%2fcan-a-necromancer-reuse-the-corpses-left-behind-from-slain-undead%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









9












$begingroup$

Maybe for skeletons, but other undead probably can't be re-reanimated



It's important to note that the spells you mentioned can create undead minions out of a specific type of remains: not just any kind of corpse can be animated by these spells (you can't raise an undead dragon or minotaur with them, for example): they are specifically designed to create undead out of dead humanoids.



The spell Create Undead contains the following text (PHB p. 229, bold added):




Choose up to three corpses of Medium or Small humanoids within range.




The spell Animate Dead has a similar requirement (PHB p. 212, bold added)




Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range.




It might not be obvious why this matters at first. It might seem that if you raised a zombie from a corpse of a humanoid, and then that zombie was destroyed, the resulting new corpse is still a dead humanoid. But a destroyed zombie or ghoul is not a humanoid corpse: it is the corpse of an undead!



As such, most destroyed undead are not valid targets of the animate dead or create undead spells.



Why might skeletons be an exception?



The text of animate dead is somewhat grammatically unclear about its possible targets. At first glance, it seems that the "pile of bones" or "corpse" must both have belonged to "a Medium or Small humanoid." But if we delete the term about the corpse, the resulting sentence:




Choose a pile of bones... of a Medium or Small humanoid within range.




becomes grammatically awkward. The pile is the thing being said to be "of" the humanoid, which is strange since humanoids don't contain piles of bones. If they had said "a pile of the bones of a Medium or Small humanoid", or "a pile of bones from a Medium or Small humanoid", it would have removed this grammatical awkwardness (by stressing that the bones, not the pile, are the thing once inside a humanoid). But this is not the structure of the sentence we are given.



However, there is one other way to remove this awkwardness, which is to assign the "humanoid" requirement only to the corpse, not the pile. This makes the sentence regarding the pile of bones less awkward, like so:




Choose a pile of bones... within range.




This is a grammatically valid reading of the original sentence, given its ambiguity (and the grammatical strangeness of the other reading). Thus, you could conclude that the bones could come from creatures other than humanoids, such as an undead.



Note that your DM may take issue with this reading. After all, it could permit you to animate a skeleton from a pile of bones from a mouse or a dragon, which is likely outside of the scope of the intended use of this spell. And since the RAW on this issue rely on an ambiguity, your DM will need to sign off on this. But if they do, you could possibly use animate dead on a destroyed skeleton to restore it to a foul semblance of life once again. After all, although the pile of bones are no longer the bones of a humanoid, they are certainly still a "pile of bones."






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the help! You’re right I wasn’t thinking of it about Creature type just that they were a Humanoid so the corpse is still a Humanoid corpse but what you’re saying makes sense.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Interestingly, Crawford said that Animate Dead "can bring them back" twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/596185201417461760, although this is an old tweet, and it is unclear what he means by "can bring them back".
    $endgroup$
    – Vylix
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    and you are right. Animate dead changes the type of the corpse. Even revivify cast on a killed zombie brings back the zombie, not the original creature. twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/709791324656902144 so the killed zombie must be a corpse of undead, not humanoid.
    $endgroup$
    – Vylix
    16 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @Vylix Crawford's tweet about revivify is what got me thinking in this direction. Since his tweets have been downgraded from "official rulings" to "possible previews that may become official rulings", I've tried to keep them from being the basis of my answers, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Thanks for pointing out the "can bring them back" tweet too. I hadn't seen that one! And yeah, it's ambiguous what exactly is meant by that (though my initial impression is that the two tweets certainly seem contradictory).
    $endgroup$
    – Gandalfmeansme
    13 hours ago


















9












$begingroup$

Maybe for skeletons, but other undead probably can't be re-reanimated



It's important to note that the spells you mentioned can create undead minions out of a specific type of remains: not just any kind of corpse can be animated by these spells (you can't raise an undead dragon or minotaur with them, for example): they are specifically designed to create undead out of dead humanoids.



The spell Create Undead contains the following text (PHB p. 229, bold added):




Choose up to three corpses of Medium or Small humanoids within range.




The spell Animate Dead has a similar requirement (PHB p. 212, bold added)




Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range.




It might not be obvious why this matters at first. It might seem that if you raised a zombie from a corpse of a humanoid, and then that zombie was destroyed, the resulting new corpse is still a dead humanoid. But a destroyed zombie or ghoul is not a humanoid corpse: it is the corpse of an undead!



As such, most destroyed undead are not valid targets of the animate dead or create undead spells.



Why might skeletons be an exception?



The text of animate dead is somewhat grammatically unclear about its possible targets. At first glance, it seems that the "pile of bones" or "corpse" must both have belonged to "a Medium or Small humanoid." But if we delete the term about the corpse, the resulting sentence:




Choose a pile of bones... of a Medium or Small humanoid within range.




becomes grammatically awkward. The pile is the thing being said to be "of" the humanoid, which is strange since humanoids don't contain piles of bones. If they had said "a pile of the bones of a Medium or Small humanoid", or "a pile of bones from a Medium or Small humanoid", it would have removed this grammatical awkwardness (by stressing that the bones, not the pile, are the thing once inside a humanoid). But this is not the structure of the sentence we are given.



However, there is one other way to remove this awkwardness, which is to assign the "humanoid" requirement only to the corpse, not the pile. This makes the sentence regarding the pile of bones less awkward, like so:




Choose a pile of bones... within range.




This is a grammatically valid reading of the original sentence, given its ambiguity (and the grammatical strangeness of the other reading). Thus, you could conclude that the bones could come from creatures other than humanoids, such as an undead.



Note that your DM may take issue with this reading. After all, it could permit you to animate a skeleton from a pile of bones from a mouse or a dragon, which is likely outside of the scope of the intended use of this spell. And since the RAW on this issue rely on an ambiguity, your DM will need to sign off on this. But if they do, you could possibly use animate dead on a destroyed skeleton to restore it to a foul semblance of life once again. After all, although the pile of bones are no longer the bones of a humanoid, they are certainly still a "pile of bones."






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the help! You’re right I wasn’t thinking of it about Creature type just that they were a Humanoid so the corpse is still a Humanoid corpse but what you’re saying makes sense.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Interestingly, Crawford said that Animate Dead "can bring them back" twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/596185201417461760, although this is an old tweet, and it is unclear what he means by "can bring them back".
    $endgroup$
    – Vylix
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    and you are right. Animate dead changes the type of the corpse. Even revivify cast on a killed zombie brings back the zombie, not the original creature. twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/709791324656902144 so the killed zombie must be a corpse of undead, not humanoid.
    $endgroup$
    – Vylix
    16 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @Vylix Crawford's tweet about revivify is what got me thinking in this direction. Since his tweets have been downgraded from "official rulings" to "possible previews that may become official rulings", I've tried to keep them from being the basis of my answers, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Thanks for pointing out the "can bring them back" tweet too. I hadn't seen that one! And yeah, it's ambiguous what exactly is meant by that (though my initial impression is that the two tweets certainly seem contradictory).
    $endgroup$
    – Gandalfmeansme
    13 hours ago
















9












9








9





$begingroup$

Maybe for skeletons, but other undead probably can't be re-reanimated



It's important to note that the spells you mentioned can create undead minions out of a specific type of remains: not just any kind of corpse can be animated by these spells (you can't raise an undead dragon or minotaur with them, for example): they are specifically designed to create undead out of dead humanoids.



The spell Create Undead contains the following text (PHB p. 229, bold added):




Choose up to three corpses of Medium or Small humanoids within range.




The spell Animate Dead has a similar requirement (PHB p. 212, bold added)




Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range.




It might not be obvious why this matters at first. It might seem that if you raised a zombie from a corpse of a humanoid, and then that zombie was destroyed, the resulting new corpse is still a dead humanoid. But a destroyed zombie or ghoul is not a humanoid corpse: it is the corpse of an undead!



As such, most destroyed undead are not valid targets of the animate dead or create undead spells.



Why might skeletons be an exception?



The text of animate dead is somewhat grammatically unclear about its possible targets. At first glance, it seems that the "pile of bones" or "corpse" must both have belonged to "a Medium or Small humanoid." But if we delete the term about the corpse, the resulting sentence:




Choose a pile of bones... of a Medium or Small humanoid within range.




becomes grammatically awkward. The pile is the thing being said to be "of" the humanoid, which is strange since humanoids don't contain piles of bones. If they had said "a pile of the bones of a Medium or Small humanoid", or "a pile of bones from a Medium or Small humanoid", it would have removed this grammatical awkwardness (by stressing that the bones, not the pile, are the thing once inside a humanoid). But this is not the structure of the sentence we are given.



However, there is one other way to remove this awkwardness, which is to assign the "humanoid" requirement only to the corpse, not the pile. This makes the sentence regarding the pile of bones less awkward, like so:




Choose a pile of bones... within range.




This is a grammatically valid reading of the original sentence, given its ambiguity (and the grammatical strangeness of the other reading). Thus, you could conclude that the bones could come from creatures other than humanoids, such as an undead.



Note that your DM may take issue with this reading. After all, it could permit you to animate a skeleton from a pile of bones from a mouse or a dragon, which is likely outside of the scope of the intended use of this spell. And since the RAW on this issue rely on an ambiguity, your DM will need to sign off on this. But if they do, you could possibly use animate dead on a destroyed skeleton to restore it to a foul semblance of life once again. After all, although the pile of bones are no longer the bones of a humanoid, they are certainly still a "pile of bones."






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Maybe for skeletons, but other undead probably can't be re-reanimated



It's important to note that the spells you mentioned can create undead minions out of a specific type of remains: not just any kind of corpse can be animated by these spells (you can't raise an undead dragon or minotaur with them, for example): they are specifically designed to create undead out of dead humanoids.



The spell Create Undead contains the following text (PHB p. 229, bold added):




Choose up to three corpses of Medium or Small humanoids within range.




The spell Animate Dead has a similar requirement (PHB p. 212, bold added)




Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range.




It might not be obvious why this matters at first. It might seem that if you raised a zombie from a corpse of a humanoid, and then that zombie was destroyed, the resulting new corpse is still a dead humanoid. But a destroyed zombie or ghoul is not a humanoid corpse: it is the corpse of an undead!



As such, most destroyed undead are not valid targets of the animate dead or create undead spells.



Why might skeletons be an exception?



The text of animate dead is somewhat grammatically unclear about its possible targets. At first glance, it seems that the "pile of bones" or "corpse" must both have belonged to "a Medium or Small humanoid." But if we delete the term about the corpse, the resulting sentence:




Choose a pile of bones... of a Medium or Small humanoid within range.




becomes grammatically awkward. The pile is the thing being said to be "of" the humanoid, which is strange since humanoids don't contain piles of bones. If they had said "a pile of the bones of a Medium or Small humanoid", or "a pile of bones from a Medium or Small humanoid", it would have removed this grammatical awkwardness (by stressing that the bones, not the pile, are the thing once inside a humanoid). But this is not the structure of the sentence we are given.



However, there is one other way to remove this awkwardness, which is to assign the "humanoid" requirement only to the corpse, not the pile. This makes the sentence regarding the pile of bones less awkward, like so:




Choose a pile of bones... within range.




This is a grammatically valid reading of the original sentence, given its ambiguity (and the grammatical strangeness of the other reading). Thus, you could conclude that the bones could come from creatures other than humanoids, such as an undead.



Note that your DM may take issue with this reading. After all, it could permit you to animate a skeleton from a pile of bones from a mouse or a dragon, which is likely outside of the scope of the intended use of this spell. And since the RAW on this issue rely on an ambiguity, your DM will need to sign off on this. But if they do, you could possibly use animate dead on a destroyed skeleton to restore it to a foul semblance of life once again. After all, although the pile of bones are no longer the bones of a humanoid, they are certainly still a "pile of bones."







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered yesterday









GandalfmeansmeGandalfmeansme

23.5k487138




23.5k487138












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the help! You’re right I wasn’t thinking of it about Creature type just that they were a Humanoid so the corpse is still a Humanoid corpse but what you’re saying makes sense.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Interestingly, Crawford said that Animate Dead "can bring them back" twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/596185201417461760, although this is an old tweet, and it is unclear what he means by "can bring them back".
    $endgroup$
    – Vylix
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    and you are right. Animate dead changes the type of the corpse. Even revivify cast on a killed zombie brings back the zombie, not the original creature. twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/709791324656902144 so the killed zombie must be a corpse of undead, not humanoid.
    $endgroup$
    – Vylix
    16 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @Vylix Crawford's tweet about revivify is what got me thinking in this direction. Since his tweets have been downgraded from "official rulings" to "possible previews that may become official rulings", I've tried to keep them from being the basis of my answers, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Thanks for pointing out the "can bring them back" tweet too. I hadn't seen that one! And yeah, it's ambiguous what exactly is meant by that (though my initial impression is that the two tweets certainly seem contradictory).
    $endgroup$
    – Gandalfmeansme
    13 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the help! You’re right I wasn’t thinking of it about Creature type just that they were a Humanoid so the corpse is still a Humanoid corpse but what you’re saying makes sense.
    $endgroup$
    – BloodySprinkles
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Interestingly, Crawford said that Animate Dead "can bring them back" twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/596185201417461760, although this is an old tweet, and it is unclear what he means by "can bring them back".
    $endgroup$
    – Vylix
    16 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    and you are right. Animate dead changes the type of the corpse. Even revivify cast on a killed zombie brings back the zombie, not the original creature. twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/709791324656902144 so the killed zombie must be a corpse of undead, not humanoid.
    $endgroup$
    – Vylix
    16 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @Vylix Crawford's tweet about revivify is what got me thinking in this direction. Since his tweets have been downgraded from "official rulings" to "possible previews that may become official rulings", I've tried to keep them from being the basis of my answers, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Thanks for pointing out the "can bring them back" tweet too. I hadn't seen that one! And yeah, it's ambiguous what exactly is meant by that (though my initial impression is that the two tweets certainly seem contradictory).
    $endgroup$
    – Gandalfmeansme
    13 hours ago


















$begingroup$
Thanks for the help! You’re right I wasn’t thinking of it about Creature type just that they were a Humanoid so the corpse is still a Humanoid corpse but what you’re saying makes sense.
$endgroup$
– BloodySprinkles
yesterday




$begingroup$
Thanks for the help! You’re right I wasn’t thinking of it about Creature type just that they were a Humanoid so the corpse is still a Humanoid corpse but what you’re saying makes sense.
$endgroup$
– BloodySprinkles
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
Interestingly, Crawford said that Animate Dead "can bring them back" twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/596185201417461760, although this is an old tweet, and it is unclear what he means by "can bring them back".
$endgroup$
– Vylix
16 hours ago




$begingroup$
Interestingly, Crawford said that Animate Dead "can bring them back" twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/596185201417461760, although this is an old tweet, and it is unclear what he means by "can bring them back".
$endgroup$
– Vylix
16 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
and you are right. Animate dead changes the type of the corpse. Even revivify cast on a killed zombie brings back the zombie, not the original creature. twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/709791324656902144 so the killed zombie must be a corpse of undead, not humanoid.
$endgroup$
– Vylix
16 hours ago






$begingroup$
and you are right. Animate dead changes the type of the corpse. Even revivify cast on a killed zombie brings back the zombie, not the original creature. twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/709791324656902144 so the killed zombie must be a corpse of undead, not humanoid.
$endgroup$
– Vylix
16 hours ago














$begingroup$
@Vylix Crawford's tweet about revivify is what got me thinking in this direction. Since his tweets have been downgraded from "official rulings" to "possible previews that may become official rulings", I've tried to keep them from being the basis of my answers, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Thanks for pointing out the "can bring them back" tweet too. I hadn't seen that one! And yeah, it's ambiguous what exactly is meant by that (though my initial impression is that the two tweets certainly seem contradictory).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
13 hours ago






$begingroup$
@Vylix Crawford's tweet about revivify is what got me thinking in this direction. Since his tweets have been downgraded from "official rulings" to "possible previews that may become official rulings", I've tried to keep them from being the basis of my answers, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Thanks for pointing out the "can bring them back" tweet too. I hadn't seen that one! And yeah, it's ambiguous what exactly is meant by that (though my initial impression is that the two tweets certainly seem contradictory).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
13 hours ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143832%2fcan-a-necromancer-reuse-the-corpses-left-behind-from-slain-undead%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

Masuk log Menu navigasi

อาณาจักร (ชีววิทยา) ดูเพิ่ม อ้างอิง รายการเลือกการนำทาง10.1086/39456810.5962/bhl.title.447410.1126/science.163.3863.150576276010.1007/BF01796092408502"Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms"10.1073/pnas.74.11.5088432104270744"Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya"1990PNAS...87.4576W10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576541592112744PubMedJump the queueexpand by handPubMedJump the queueexpand by handPubMedJump the queueexpand by hand"A revised six-kingdom system of life"10.1111/j.1469-185X.1998.tb00030.x9809012"Only six kingdoms of life"10.1098/rspb.2004.2705169172415306349"Kingdoms Protozoa and Chromista and the eozoan root of the eukaryotic tree"10.1098/rsbl.2009.0948288006020031978เพิ่มข้อมูล