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.

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.

So just buff the martials! Easy peasy

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.

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.

You could just give players multiple ASIs, but they can't be applied to the same stat

Or that. I think it stills leaves room for Shenanigans though.

Of course, but it favors the RPer who just wants to be decent more than the minmaxer, since it encourages breadth not depth.

>undead and constructs are valid targets by RAW. I mean, if you follow the logic, undead are "animated corpses" and constructs are "animated objects", sooo.... Sure, the "Rule of Cool" wins my vote on this.

Definetly. Though some role-players might find it annoying that it creates the impression that your character just eventually becomes decent at everything.

Yes. That's the point. But you don't need rule of cool for this. You just need to use at least a single braincell to apply RAI.

Gonna disagree, rule of cool is the deciding factor between the RAI vs RAW interpretations. I wouldn't say it's RAI, spells or abilities meant for inanimate objects typically don't include undead under colloquial interpretations but it is definitely RAW using very technical interpretations.

In 5e, yes. You would eventually become good at everything since DCs aren't all that high. There are things you could do to combat that, but at that point you'd be homebrewing your own rpg system

Yes. And RAI means „rules as intended“. The technical interpretation of those words seems very much unintended.