PDA

View Full Version : Undead petrification?



Demidos
2010-12-20, 08:57 PM
Ok, so i'm a player in a campaign where the world is about to be overrun by undead hordes (unless we stop them, of course:smallwink:)

Anyway, my party (a truenamer (the fixed kind), a cloistered cleric, a shifter, and a arcane hierophant) were fighting this lich, and the lich's HP dropped below the absolute limit of the truenamer. The truenamer then turned the lich into stone (the DM allowed this). The DM then proceeded to use one of the lich's SLAs on a nearby player. The party was, of course, rather suprised, and we asked the DM how that was possible. The DM's response was that since the description of someone who was turned to stone (as per the spell flesh to stone) was "treated as unconscious", and undead are immune to being unconscious, that the lich could still use SLAs, but just couldnt move or see (aka it didnt have line of effect).

Now, disregarding the validity of turning the dude to stone, does the DM's argument make sense?

Thanks

Keld Denar
2010-12-20, 09:00 PM
SLAs have no verbal, material, or somatic components. If the lich were "held" instead of petrified, it would be perfectly legal. Now, the whole dealiyo about consiousness isn't really covered by the rules. However the DM wants to rule is pretty much the answer.

Demidos
2010-12-20, 09:05 PM
SLAs have no verbal, material, or somatic components. If the lich were "held" instead of petrified, it would be perfectly legal. Now, the whole dealiyo about consiousness isn't really covered by the rules. However the DM wants to rule is pretty much the answer.

Wow. That was fast. :smallsmile:

Ok. The thing is, the DM is pretty reasonable, and he suggested posting on the Playground. He has agreed that if the playground agrees that it is a stretch, that in all future encounters we can treat it as..."unconcious", for lack of a better word:smalltongue:

AKA, he has agreed to stand by the Playground's opinions. So! opinions!

Foryn Gilnith
2010-12-20, 09:11 PM
undead are immune to being unconscious

I see nothing in the Monster Manual suggesting that this is the case.

tyckspoon
2010-12-20, 09:23 PM
The DM's response was that since the description of someone who was turned to stone (as per the spell flesh to stone) was "treated as unconscious", and undead are immune to being unconscious, that the lich could still use SLAs, but just couldnt move or see (aka it didnt have line of effect).


Undead aren't immune to unconsciousness. They're just immune to the vast majority of ways to cause it (nonlethal damage, physical ability damage, poisons, non-Object-affecting Fort saves.. most of the knockout techniques require a living target.) Yer DM's wrong on that technical point, although if you manage to find something that actually is incapable of being unconscious it could still potentially use SLAs, by the somewhat bizarre conditions of Flesh To Stone. It'd have to pretty much be a point-blank AoE effect, tho, since it couldn't use anything Targeted or accurately determine where to place anything other than directly on top of itself.

Jack_Simth
2010-12-20, 09:27 PM
I see nothing in the Monster Manual suggesting that this is the case.
That's a good place to start, actually... the Type entry:

Undead Type

Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.
Features

An undead creature has the following features.

* 12-sided Hit Dice.
* Base attack bonus equal to ½ total Hit Dice (as wizard).
* Good Will saves.
* Skill points equal to (4 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die, if the undead creature has an Intelligence score. However, many undead are mindless and gain no skill points or feats.

Traits

An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* No Constitution score.
* Darkvision out to 60 feet.
* Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
* Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects.
* Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects.
* Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.
* Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
* Uses its Charisma modifier for Concentration checks.
* Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed.
* Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
* Proficient with its natural weapons, all simple weapons, and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
* Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Undead not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Undead are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
* Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
Immune to sleep effects, but no listing of unconsciousness immunity.

So let's take a look at the Lich entry:

Lich click to see monster

A lich is an undead spellcaster, usually a wizard or sorcerer but sometimes a cleric or other spellcaster, who has used its magical powers to unnaturally extend its life.

A lich is a gaunt and skeletal humanoid with withered flesh stretched tight across horribly visible bones. Its eyes have long ago been lost to decay, but bright pinpoints of crimson light burn on in the empty sockets.

Liches speak Common plus any other languages they knew in life.
Creating A Lich

"Lich" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery.

A lich has all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.
Size and Type

The creature’s type changes to undead. Do not recalculate base attack bonus, saves, or skill points. Size is unchanged.
Hit Dice

Increase all current and future Hit Dice to d12s.
Armor Class

A lich has a +5 natural armor bonus or the base creature’s natural armor bonus, whichever is better.
Attack

A lich has a touch attack that it can use once per round. If the base creature can use weapons, the lich retains this ability. A creature with natural weapons retains those natural weapons. A lich fighting without weapons uses either its touch attack or its primary natural weapon (if it has any). A lich armed with a weapon uses its touch or a weapon, as it desires.
Full Attack

A lich fighting without weapons uses either its touch attack (see above) or its natural weapons (if it has any). If armed with a weapon, it usually uses the weapon as its primary attack along with a touch as a natural secondary attack, provided it has a way to make that attack (either a free hand or a natural weapon that it can use as a secondary attack).
Damage

A lich without natural weapons has a touch attack that uses negative energy to deal 1d8+5 points of damage to living creatures; a Will save (DC 10 + ½ lich’s HD + lich’s Cha modifier) halves the damage. A lich with natural weapons can use its touch attack or its natural weaponry, as it prefers. If it chooses the latter, it deals 1d8+5 points of extra damage on one natural weapon attack.
Special Attacks

A lich retains all the base creature’s special attacks and gains those described below. Save DCs are equal to 10 + ½ lich’s HD + lich’s Cha modifier unless otherwise noted.
Fear Aura (Su)

Liches are shrouded in a dreadful aura of death and evil. Creatures of less than 5 HD in a 60-foot radius that look at the lich must succeed on a Will save or be affected as though by a fear spell from a sorcerer of the lich’s level. A creature that successfully saves cannot be affected again by the same lich’s aura for 24 hours.
Paralyzing Touch (Su)

Any living creature a lich hits with its touch attack must succeed on a Fortitude save or be permanently paralyzed. Remove paralysis or any spell that can remove a curse can free the victim (see the bestow curse spell description).

The effect cannot be dispelled. Anyone paralyzed by a lich seems dead, though a DC 20 Spot check or a DC 15 Heal check reveals that the victim is still alive..
Spells

A lich can cast any spells it could cast while alive.
Special Qualities

A lich retains all the base creature’s special qualities and gains those described below.
Turn Resistance (Ex)

A lich has +4 turn resistance.
Damage Reduction (Su)

A lich’s undead body is tough, giving the creature damage reduction 15/bludgeoning and magic. Its natural weapons are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Immunities (Ex)

Liches have immunity to cold, electricity, polymorph (though they can use polymorph effects on themselves), and mind-affecting attacks.
Abilities

Increase from the base creature as follows: Int +2, Wis +2, Cha +2. Being undead, a lich has no Constitution score.
Skills

Liches have a +8 racial bonus on Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot checks. Otherwise same as the base creature.
Organization

Solitary or troupe (1 lich, plus 2-4 vampires and 5-8 vampire spawn).
Challenge Rating

Same as the base creature + 2.
Treasure

Standard coins; double goods; double items.
Alignment

Any evil.
Advancement

By character class.
Level Adjustment

Same as the base creature +4.
Lich Characters

The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character. A lich retains all class abilities it had in life.
The Lich’s Phylactery

An integral part of becoming a lich is creating a magic phylactery in which the character stores its life force. As a rule, the only way to get rid of a lich for sure is to destroy its phylactery. Unless its phylactery is located and destroyed, a lich reappears 1d10 days after its apparent death.

Each lich must make its own phylactery, which requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The character must be able to cast spells and have a caster level of 11th or higher. The phylactery costs 120,000 gp and 4,800 XP to create and has a caster level equal to that of its creator at the time of creation.

The most common form of phylactery is a sealed metal box containing strips of parchment on which magical phrases have been transcribed. The box is Tiny and has 40 hit points, hardness 20, and a break DC of 40.

Other forms of phylacteries can exist, such as rings, amulets, or similar items.

I'm not seeing anything specifying Unconsciousness either. Hmm....

Keld Denar
2010-12-20, 09:37 PM
Undead aren't immune to daze effects (which are different from stun effects, which they are immune to). If it was ruled that the unconsiousness part of being petrified was similar enough to a daze effect rather than a sleep or stun effect (not a far stretch, IMO), then yes, being petrified would prevent him doing anything, SLAs or otherwise.

Its really not clearly defined though.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-12-20, 10:41 PM
Litches are immune to Polymorph effects, which includes Flesh to Stone, so technically it shouldn't have worked in the first place. Doubly so because they are immune to anything which allows a fort save that doesn't work on objects.

However, I am in agreement with the others. Having allowed it to be turned to stone, it is not immune to unconsciousness, simply every method of rendering an individual unconscious.

Coidzor
2010-12-21, 01:57 AM
Well. Unconsciousness is where one isn't conscious. As far as I can tell, that entails not being aware of or able to interact with one's surroundings (both definitely covered by being turned into inert stone) or actively think(this one is more along the lines of how death isn't defined well enough to prevent characters from still walking around). So, I would say that no, the lich should not have been able to choose to use SLAs given it wasn't so much a lich at that point so much as a lich-shaped statue.

So what kind of SLAs was the lich that was turned into a statue using? :smallconfused:

Mastikator
2010-12-21, 03:02 AM
Since a lich doesn't use his body to think or be conscious, turning it into stone should either count as it being destroyed, or what the DM did.

Die catgirls DIE!!

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-21, 03:46 AM
Depending on how well preserved this lich was, it might or might not have had a physical brain. Either way, that's obviously not what it's using to think with any more (they can think with a completely hollow skull), so I don't see why petrification would make it unconscious. I don't even see how changing it to stone would necessarily affect its vision. If its body had already been reduced to nothing but bone, petrification might not even affect its movement, as the bones are held together by mystical necromantic energies that might well still work no matter what the bones were constructed of (there's even a Stone Bones spell in the books to toughen up skeletal undead). However, if the lich were still fleshy, being petrified would probably paralyze it.

Regardless of all that, though, I don't see how you could petrify a lich in the first place. Doesn't petrification require a failed Fort save, something they never have to worry about?

AyeGill
2010-12-21, 03:50 AM
Depending on how well preserved this lich was, it might or might not have had a physical brain. Either way, that's obviously not what it's using to think with any more (they can think with a completely hollow skull), so I don't see why petrification would make it unconscious. I don't even see how changing it to stone would necessarily affect its vision. If its body had already been reduced to nothing but bone, petrification might not even affect its movement, as the bones are held together by mystical necromantic energies that might well still work no matter what the bones were constructed of (there's even a Stone Bones spell in the books to toughen up skeletal undead). However, if the lich were still fleshy, being petrified would probably paralyze it.

Regardless of all that, though, I don't see how you could petrify a lich in the first place. Doesn't petrification require a failed Fort save, something they never have to worry about?

What he said.

Demidos
2010-12-21, 03:51 AM
Ok, Thanks for all the replies!
I sent my DM the link.
Anyone else who want to post after this, of course, still can. Feel free!:smallsmile:

Demidos
2010-12-21, 03:53 AM
What he said.

Yes. Thats why i specified in the beginning of this thread.:smallamused:

And the truenamer did it with his "no save you die" abilities:smallbiggrin:

holywhippet
2010-12-21, 03:56 AM
Flesh to stone would require a fort save normally - except it wouldn't work on a lich (no flesh). I'm not sure how truenamer powers actually work though, I've never looked at the class.

AyeGill
2010-12-21, 03:59 AM
in that case, RAW, the lich is unconscious and cannot cast spells or use SLA's. however, a skeletal lich would probably still be able to move, since, you know, it moves by magic anyways.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-12-21, 08:25 AM
It doesn't matter if Flesh to Stone normally allows a save or not... it's a Polymorph effect, which litches are explicitly immune to. Even if the litch still had flesh he'd still be immune to it.

Telonius
2010-12-21, 10:11 AM
Depending on how well preserved this lich was, it might or might not have had a physical brain. Either way, that's obviously not what it's using to think with any more (they can think with a completely hollow skull), so I don't see why petrification would make it unconscious. I don't even see how changing it to stone would necessarily affect its vision. If its body had already been reduced to nothing but bone, petrification might not even affect its movement, as the bones are held together by mystical necromantic energies that might well still work no matter what the bones were constructed of (there's even a Stone Bones spell in the books to toughen up skeletal undead). However, if the lich were still fleshy, being petrified would probably paralyze it.

Regardless of all that, though, I don't see how you could petrify a lich in the first place. Doesn't petrification require a failed Fort save, something they never have to worry about?

I agree that it doesn't make the most sense, but being unconscious is part of being petrified, RAW (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#petrified).


A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious.

And for unconscious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious):

Knocked out and helpless.


However he got there, if he's been turned to stone, he's petrified; and if he's petrified he's unconscious.

A couple more thoughts ...Flesh to Stone isn't explicitly polymorph, is it? It's just Transmutation. None of its wording is taken from Polymorph and the abilities aren't based on any of the standard polymorph line.

What's the exact wording of the "fixed" Truenamer ability in question, by the way?

Keld Denar
2010-12-21, 10:23 AM
Its a Transmuation effect, but it isn't part of the Polymorph subschool. Furthermore, referencing PHBII, it stats that spells that are based on Alter Self or Polymorph are part of the Polymorph subchool. Furthermore, Polymorph effects end when their target is slain. Flesh to Stone doesn't end, even if you trash the statue.

So...Flesh to Stone isn't a Polymorph subschool spell, so Polymorph immunity wouldn't help.

Now, Flesh to Stone doesn't affect objects, especially not with the line "Only creatures made of flesh are affected by this spell." That, however, was already specifically overruled by the DM. If the DM allows the lich to be petrified, its immunity to polymorph spells wouldn't change that.

Coidzor
2010-12-21, 02:55 PM
I don't even see how changing it to stone would necessarily affect its vision. If its body had already been reduced to nothing but bone, petrification might not even affect its movement, as the bones are held together by mystical necromantic energies that might well still work no matter what the bones were constructed of (there's even a Stone Bones spell in the books to toughen up skeletal undead). However, if the lich were still fleshy, being petrified would probably paralyze it.

What, you think the lich's animus could move a fused-together stone statue? :smallconfused: There's no joints, interlocking or otherwise, or indeed, any moving parts. It would have to break the stone in order to move it like that.

So, yeah, OP, if your DM is going to let the spell work, he needs to... LET THE SPELL WORK.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-21, 03:27 PM
What, you think the lich's animus could move a fused-together stone statue? :smallconfused: There's no joints, interlocking or otherwise, or indeed, any moving parts. It would have to break the stone in order to move it like that.

So, yeah, OP, if your DM is going to let the spell work, he needs to... LET THE SPELL WORK.

No, I don't think the lich could move if it were a fused together stone statue. In fact, I said as much when I indicated that if it were still fleshy, I thought it would be made immobile. However, many liches are stripped or nearly stripped bone. The only thing holding those bones together is the lich's will. If this lich were one of those, I see no reason it couldn't move, especially as there are already magics (http://www.realmshelps.net/cgi-bin/spellsind.pl?Stone_Bones) specifically meant to petrify and toughen undead bones that have no immobilizing effects.

Coidzor
2010-12-21, 03:37 PM
No, I don't think the lich could move if it were a fused together stone statue. In fact, I said as much when I indicated that if it were still fleshy, I thought it would be made immobile. However, many liches are stripped or nearly stripped bone. The only thing holding those bones together is the lich's will. If this lich were one of those, I see no reason it couldn't move, especially as there are already magics (http://www.realmshelps.net/cgi-bin/spellsind.pl?Stone_Bones) specifically meant to petrify and toughen undead bones that have no immobilizing effects.

You're putting far too much semantic emphasis on the "flesh" part of the spell. That part is just about whether a creature experiences the spell's effects at all. Which, since the DM ruled that the lich did experience the spell's effect, then if the mindless part doesn't preclude movement, then the inert part certainly should.

Flesh to Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fleshtoStone.htm):

The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue. If the statue resulting from this spell is broken or damaged, the subject (if ever returned to its original state) has similar damage or deformities. The creature is not dead, but it does not seem to be alive either when viewed with spells such as deathwatch.

Only creatures made of flesh are affected by this spell.

So, skeletal liches, if a distinction is made, simply wouldn't have any effect whatsoever rather than getting a free buff from an enemy spell. and if they do get effected by the spell, then they experience all of its drawbacks.

And so the lich shouldn't have been using SLAs and certainly should not be capable of moving.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-21, 04:43 PM
You're putting far too much semantic emphasis on the "flesh" part of the spell. That part is just about whether a creature experiences the spell's effects at all. Which, since the DM ruled that the lich did experience the spell's effect, then if the mindless part doesn't preclude movement, then the inert part certainly should.

Flesh to Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fleshtoStone.htm):


So, skeletal liches, if a distinction is made, simply wouldn't have any effect whatsoever rather than getting a free buff from an enemy spell. and if they do get effected by the spell, then they experience all of its drawbacks.

And so the lich shouldn't have been using SLAs and certainly should not be capable of moving.

I don't know how I'd rule as a GM in this case, because:

I don't know how lengthy or hard the fight was (was this a good, dramatic end to it?),
I've never looked closely at truenamers (fixed or unfixed versions) so I don't know whether their powers allow saves and if so, what type, and
I don't know how the lich was originally described (skeletal or just decayed flesh).
I'd also have to think a bit about whether to go with RAI compared to RAW. After all, if the spell could never be cast on a lich in the first place, is it a good idea to use every bit of text from the spell when using the analogous truenamer power to transform organic material to stone? I think it's unjustifiable to expect that text to automatically take precedence given that the designers could not have anticipated that it might someday be applied in a circumstance they had specificaly barred.

Depending on all the circumstances, I might rule one way or I might rule another. I certainly don't think that a GM could be criticized as definitively "wrong" no matter how they ruled in a case like this.

Demidos
2010-12-21, 05:38 PM
I don't know how I'd rule as a GM in this case, because:

I don't know how lengthy or hard the fight was (was this a good, dramatic end to it?),
I've never looked closely at truenamers (fixed or unfixed versions) so I don't know whether their powers allow saves and if so, what type, and
I don't know how the lich was originally described (skeletal or just decayed flesh).
I'd also have to think a bit about whether to go with RAI compared to RAW. After all, if the spell could never be cast on a lich in the first place, is it a good idea to use every bit of text from the spell when using the analogous truenamer power to transform organic material to stone? I think it's unjustifiable to expect that text to automatically take precedence given that the designers could not have anticipated that it might someday be applied in a circumstance they had specificaly barred.

Depending on all the circumstances, I might rule one way or I might rule another. I certainly don't think that a GM could be criticized as definitively "wrong" no matter how they ruled in a case like this.

Again, thanks for all the replies:smallbiggrin: OK, lets see....


The fixed truenamers abilities function sa the power word spells, aka, if youre under a certain HP threshold (determined by you class level and cha modifier (theres more stuff so its not broken)) you die.

The truenamer ability is extremely vague

Word of Stone
Utterance 3
Base DC: 25
Duration: 1 round
Normal: The target is petrified.
Reverse: If the target is petrified, the effect is suppressed.
Augmentation (normal): If you increase the DC by 12, the effect is permanent.
Augmentation (reverse): If you increase the DC by 8, the petrification effect is permanently removed.

The DM, of course, cannot be "wrong", but if the reason they rule one way is because of an interpretation of the text that the players believe is wrong, shouldnt the players at least have a right to point it out? I mean, obviously, if the DM disagrees he can just houserule, but its not so much a "DM being wrong" question so much as a rules clarification....:smallcool:

Coidzor
2010-12-21, 05:40 PM
Of course the DM can be wrong. He can misremember things that he was going to play by the book and didn't want to enter into house rule territory over.

Or he can directly contradict himself by playing the exact same thing two different ways in the same game.

Demidos
2010-12-21, 05:40 PM
The Flesh to stone spells, im pretty sure, turn the subject to stone INCLUDING BONES....otherwise that would be wierd. REGARDLESS, the truenamer ability merely says (see above) that they are petrified. IMO, Flesh to stone may have been the inspiration for the utterance, but isnt the definition of it

For anyone who needs a link to the fixed truenamer
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90961

Demidos
2010-12-21, 05:42 PM
Of course the DM can be wrong. He can misremember things that he was going to play by the book and didn't want to enter into house rule territory over.

Or he can directly contradict himself by playing the exact same thing two different ways in the same game.

The DM is NEVER wrong:smallbiggrin:
Yes, thats why he suggested i bring my question to the forums:smalltongue:
(thanks for the fast replies!:smallwink:)

Demidos
2010-12-21, 05:44 PM
No, I don't think the lich could move if it were a fused together stone statue. In fact, I said as much when I indicated that if it were still fleshy, I thought it would be made immobile. However, many liches are stripped or nearly stripped bone. The only thing holding those bones together is the lich's will. If this lich were one of those, I see no reason it couldn't move, especially as there are already magics (http://www.realmshelps.net/cgi-bin/spellsind.pl?Stone_Bones) specifically meant to petrify and toughen undead bones that have no immobilizing effects.

Cool argument.....but thats really not a player's call:smallfrown:
Thats like, a deep discussion for people who have animated undead monstrousities before:smallsigh:

Demidos
2010-12-21, 05:45 PM
It doesn't matter if Flesh to Stone normally allows a save or not... it's a Polymorph effect, which litches are explicitly immune to. Even if the litch still had flesh he'd still be immune to it.

:smallsigh: Its not flesh to stone, its a truenamer ability. I KNEW i shouldnt have mentioned flesh to stone....:smallannoyed:

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-21, 06:16 PM
Any organic living being that is petrified loses the ability to think because its brain/nervous system is now stone. It loses its ability to move because even if it could still think, almost all living beings are unitary organisms, not composite beings comrised of separate interlocking pieces. Stone isn't flexible, so petrified creatures cannot bend joints or limbs.

There is only one analogous case I can imagine at this point that might involve a living being. Let us posit that a truenamer petrified a human who was currently possessed (by a ghost, demon, whatever). The body would certainly be made immobile. Would the possessing entity be made unconscious?

This is relevant because a lich is, in fact, constantly in the same type of situation. Their "life force" resides within their phylactery (not their body) and animates/possesses their corpse. If that body is destroyed, it can work to slowly create another. As a player, I could easily accept a GM ruling that petrification renders a body currently uninhabitable, although I believe it would be at least equally defensible to rule otherwise (again, see the Stone Bones spell). If the body had flesh covering every joint, it would certainly be locked in place even if the animating spirit had not been driven out. If it didn't have flesh covering every joint, then either the lich would still retain at least some mobility or, if its spirit had been evicted, it would fall as separate stony fragments to the floor. The petrification spell certainly wouldn't create stone to fill in the gaps.

Reynard
2010-12-21, 06:37 PM
Any organic living being that is petrified loses the ability to think because its brain/nervous system is now stone. It loses its ability to move because even if it could still think, almost all living beings are unitary organisms, not composite beings comrised of separate interlocking pieces. Stone isn't flexible, so petrified creatures cannot bend joints or limbs.

There is only one analogous case I can imagine at this point that might involve a living being. Let us posit that a truenamer petrified a human who was currently possessed (by a ghost, demon, whatever). The body would certainly be made immobile. Would the possessing entity be made unconscious?

This is relevant because a lich is, in fact, constantly in the same type of situation. Their "life force" resides within their phylactery (not their body) and animates/possesses their corpse. If that body is destroyed, it can work to slowly create another. As a player, I could easily accept a GM ruling that petrification renders a body currently uninhabitable, although I believe it would be at least equally defensible to rule otherwise (again, see the Stone Bones spell). If the body had flesh covering every joint, it would certainly be locked in place even if the animating spirit had not been driven out. If it didn't have flesh covering every joint, then either the lich would still retain at least some mobility or, if its spirit had been evicted, it would fall as separate stony fragments to the floor. The petrification spell certainly wouldn't create stone to fill in the gaps.

For the spell Flesh to Stone, bone = flesh. The word 'flesh' is just in the name of it, not in the description of the spell's effects.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-21, 07:26 PM
For the spell Flesh to Stone, bone = flesh. The word 'flesh' is just in the name of it, not in the description of the spell's effects.

And I don't argue otherwise. However, if you had an undead skeleton comprised of hundreds of separate bones, many unconnected by solid bits, and that skeleton were turned to stone, it would either fall apart because it was now temporarily unanimated or it wouldn't fall apart because the material it was comprised of made no difference to the fact of the animation. I cannot see how petrifying a skeleton would make the skeleton rigid and immobile as a single unit, as that would require the creation of stone between the gaps, something the effect does not do. Further, as stated above, in this case the animating will isn't inherent to the lich as such (not that I'm positive that it would make a difference if it were). It is instead inherent to the phylactery.

Urpriest
2010-12-21, 08:47 PM
Grelna, undead are not constructs. Bones made of stone can't be animated by negative energy unless they're fossils or part of an elemental.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-21, 09:47 PM
Grelna, undead are not constructs. Bones made of stone can't be animated by negative energy unless they're fossils or part of an elemental.

I'll concede right off that I could see the GM ruling that same way for any specific petrification effect. However, it's already established that it is possible to transmute an undead skeleton without affecting the animation of that skeleton. Stone Bones and Iron Bones are two spells that do just that. Stone bones is ambiguous as to whether the bones actually become stone. Very arguably they don't, only becoming as strong as stone. However, Iron Bones literally changes a skeleton to iron. Neither spell has any negative effect on the undead in question.

Yukitsu
2010-12-21, 09:57 PM
Don't know why you'd go bugging him for this, if he was nice enough to let it work in the first place. Just let it slide regardless and try to pick attacks that are less ambiguous.

Shalist
2010-12-21, 10:21 PM
...must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night’s sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare.

Just saying :P

Demidos
2010-12-22, 02:01 PM
Don't know why you'd go bugging him for this, if he was nice enough to let it work in the first place. Just let it slide regardless and try to pick attacks that are less ambiguous.

...undead are vulnerable to this ability, because its a truenamer ability:smallmad:

and as ive said repeatedly:smallsigh:, im not bugging him. I simply disagree with his interpretation of the rule, and he agreed that it was ambigous enough to ask the forum

Sorry if i sound a little snippy, but ive mentioned all this before...

Demidos
2010-12-22, 02:03 PM
Just saying :P

Lol. Thats hilarious. I think the DM will disagree though:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Urpriest
2010-12-22, 02:20 PM
I'll concede right off that I could see the GM ruling that same way for any specific petrification effect. However, it's already established that it is possible to transmute an undead skeleton without affecting the animation of that skeleton. Stone Bones and Iron Bones are two spells that do just that. Stone bones is ambiguous as to whether the bones actually become stone. Very arguably they don't, only becoming as strong as stone. However, Iron Bones literally changes a skeleton to iron. Neither spell has any negative effect on the undead in question.

Both spells also specifically target undead. Note that Iron Body turns a living creature into perfectly functional living iron, so turning a creature into iron doesn't in general affect its ability to move whether it's animated by undead will or by conventional biology. Whether a creature remains animate under a transformation is a function of how the effect generating the transformation works, which is specified in its description. The fact that undead are animated by their own will doesn't actually mean anything in practice beyond the immunities specified in the undead type.

Yukitsu
2010-12-22, 02:27 PM
...undead are vulnerable to this ability, because its a truenamer ability:smallmad:

and as ive said repeatedly:smallsigh:, im not bugging him. I simply disagree with his interpretation of the rule, and he agreed that it was ambigous enough to ask the forum

Sorry if i sound a little snippy, but ive mentioned all this before...

Still was his ruling that you can do so, and I wouldn't argue with a DM that rules otherwise. Truenaming in general is so poorly thought out that in general you should see the general trend of intent instead of trying to cling to RAW which doesn't make much sense in anything other than balance arguments.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-22, 03:42 PM
Both spells also specifically target undead. Note that Iron Body turns a living creature into perfectly functional living iron, so turning a creature into iron doesn't in general affect its ability to move whether it's animated by undead will or by conventional biology. Whether a creature remains animate under a transformation is a function of how the effect generating the transformation works, which is specified in its description. The fact that undead are animated by their own will doesn't actually mean anything in practice beyond the immunities specified in the undead type.

Excellent point regarding the specifically targeted nature of those spells vs. the general nature of the truenamer's power. In fact, that's a strong enough point that I'd agree that's probably how the petrification power should work against bony undead in general. However, although I think the GM could make several possible rulings restricting the power of a lich petrified in this way, I believe there is one major caveat (which I wish had occurred to me at the very beginning of this discussion).

That caveat is that I cannot see how a petrification effect would cause unconsciousness in the lich, as its consciousness is seemingly based not on the "physiology" of its body, but on its phylactery, something that is not subject to petrification. If the lich's body were literally destroyed (a la Xykon), it still wouldn't cause unconsciousness in the lich. So being petrified would either

temporarily cut the connection to the phylactery, at which point the lich is restricted to powers and Stilled spells usable from the phylactery itself (depending on the GM's ruling, they might need to be Silenced as well) while its body was inert and harmless, or
leave that connection intact while the lich retained full mobility as argued earlier, or
leave that connection intact, but make the body incapable of movement, in which case the lich might still have access to at least some of its normal powers (and if not, see option 1). Given that even its speech is magical in nature (no breathing and quite possibly no tongue or larynx), I'm not sure whether a petrified body still connected to its phylactery would lose it. Xykon can speak from his phylactery without any body at all, although I don't pretend he is automatically canonical. It's certainly possible that even with the connection intact a petrified lich would not have the paralyzing touch or the fear aura because the GM could rule that enchantments on its body creating such effects were interfered with by the change in composition. However, the GM could alternately rule that such effects were epiphenomena of the spiritual force of the lich itself. Either way, I don't think the ruling would be a gimme, but I don't think it could legitimately be argued with.
I think in the last few posts I more or less repeated myself, so I tried to unpack the argument fully in this one. Does it make sense?

Demidos
2010-12-27, 11:10 PM
Its worth noting that, though I've read a lot of the posts in this thread, I still don't understand why the DM brought up unconsciousness at all. Is it something about how truenamers petrify things that's different than the usual 'flesh to stone' type affects?

Sorry for the long break, but, you know, family stuff:smallwink:

Here is the truenamer thing

Word of Stone
Utterance 3
Base DC: 25
Duration: 1 round
Normal: The target is petrified.
Reverse: If the target is petrified, the effect is suppressed.
Augmentation (normal): If you increase the DC by 12, the effect is permanent.
Augmentation (reverse): If you increase the DC by 8, the petrification effect is permanently removed.


I think he was saying that undead are immune to being unconcious. Is there any rule backing to this?

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-12-28, 12:28 AM
Sorry for the long break, but, you know, family stuff:smallwink:

Here is the truenamer thing

Word of Stone
Utterance 3
Base DC: 25
Duration: 1 round
Normal: The target is petrified.
Reverse: If the target is petrified, the effect is suppressed.
Augmentation (normal): If you increase the DC by 12, the effect is permanent.
Augmentation (reverse): If you increase the DC by 8, the petrification effect is permanently removed.


I think he was saying that undead are immune to being unconcious. Is there any rule backing to this?

Well, under the description of unconcious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious), it's clear that undead are immune to everything that generates it. They're immune to non-lethal damage, and crumble at 0 like constructs and other things without a Con score.

AtomicKitKat
2010-12-29, 01:39 AM
Put me in the camp of: "He stops moving, and acts as though his body was just destroyed(ie, he goes back to his phylactery to regenerate a new body in 1d10 days, the party gets a brand new un-life-sized lich statue for their garden)."