Prestidigitation to kill zombies

[Visivicous]

I recently played a Pathfinder game in which one of our players, a Wizard, used Prestidigitation to flavor the necks of several zombies as brain. The DM thought it was funny so went along with it, and had the zombies bite each other for mouthfuls of delicious brain flavoured flesh.

Does this actually make sense rules wise?

[Worira]

Not unless they were already licking each others' necks, no. Also, DnD zombies don't eat brains unless instructed to, and in fact don't normally eat at all.

[Visivicous]

I guess that DM just went with what the Wizard intended, and retroactively made the zombies similar, behavior wise, to the classic and cliched zombies from old movies (the ones that went around saying 'brains, brains!').

A good chunk of taste is tied to the sense of smell, so it was assumed that the zombies could smell brain flavored flesh.

It was good for a laugh though.

[dascarletm]

I recently played a Pathfinder game in which one of our players, a Wizard, used Prestidigitation to flavor the necks of several zombies as brain. The DM thought it was funny so went along with it, and had the zombies bite each other for mouthfuls of delicious brain flavoured flesh.

Does this actually make sense rules wise?

Yeah, by rule 0. :smalltongue:

[legomaster00156]

It makes sense by the Rule of Funny, which is strictly superior to Rules as Written.

[Psyren]

Does this actually make sense rules wise?

Not a bit. But if your group is having fun then I'd say roll with it.

[TuggyNE]

Does this actually make sense rules wise?

Vexingly, the spell does not clearly forbid use on creatures, though it kinda vaguely hints that it should only act on objects. However, the stated changes wouldn't actually have made any difference, as other posters mentioned, so it's a moot point in this case.

[ericgrau]

I'd say it can only target objects because it doesn't seem to even hint at creatures. While unmentioned things aren't necessarily one way or another and it's bad form to assume whatever you want, if a spell says it does X to Y it's usually pretty safe to assume that it only works on Y.

More specifically it lacks the power to duplicate other spell effects. So even if a specific spell doesn't exist for what you're doing, doing something as powerful as any other spell with prestidigitation shouldn't be allowed.

[Psyren]

From a rules standpoint, whether or not zombies can be magically flavored is not the issue. The real issue was stated by Worira - D&D zombies don't eat brains (or anything else.) So even if this is possible, it won't do anything to their behavior.

But as was also stated, the DM ultimately went with it, which trumps anything we can say here.

[Alefiend]

I agree that rule 0, rule of fun, and rule of funny are the important ones here, but I'd add another concern to using the spell that way. Does the caster know what brains smell and taste like? If not, I would probably not allow the spell to do that--it's like creating an illusion of something you've never seen and can barely picture.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I certainly wouldn't have had it work in my game. Besides the concerns raised above with D&D/PF zombies not eating brains and the wizard probably having no clue what brains taste like, it doesn't seem fun for the rest of the party who just missed out on an encounter so the DM and the wizard could have a laugh at a pop culture trope.

That said, if the DM went with it and if the players were OK with it, that's really all that matters. Things like this will vary from one group to another and even from one session to another. If the bulk of the group is in kind of a silly mood, this is much more acceptable than if they were all looking forward to a good fight and didn't get one because of it.

[Worira]

I wouldn't be too worried about the players missing out on an encounter, honestly. Unattended zombies are slow and stupid enough that it's really just a matter of how they end up being outsmarted.

[Zale]

So, could one in theory use Prestidigitation to turn someone's hair a vivid green?

[TuggyNE]

So, could one in theory use Prestidigitation to turn someone's hair a vivid green?

If you consider either a) their hair is an unattended object (highly unlikely); or b) the spell works on creatures as well as objects (doesn't really seem to be intended). Otherwise, no.

[Zale]

Oh well..

I'll just have to settle for making their food taste like camel spit.

[Yajirobe]

So you know the taste of camel spit? I believe you need to find out first.

[Zale]

What if he yawned at the same time a camel decided to spit?

[whibla]

So, could one in theory use Prestidigitation to turn someone's hair a vivid green?

It has always seemed to me that Prestidigitation was the roll-together of all the original cantrips originally presented in the AD&D version of the UA. One of those was called Color, and included the line "... or even hair or skin changed to another colour."

I say that it was a roll-together because of the other original cantrips, such as Shine, Spice, Warm, Flavor, and so on. These, plus the Color one previously mentioned, all fell under the category 'Useful Cantrips'. When considering any use of Prestidigitation I often think back to these originals, just as a sanity check / guideline.

To directly answer your question, yes, in my opinion, but the change would be strictly temporary (and unfortunately much shorter than the original's 30 day duration), and would only be successful on a willing target, as funny as it might be otherwise...

[Madara]

From a rules standpoint, whether or not zombies can be magically flavored is not the issue. The real issue was stated by Worira - D&D zombies don't eat brains (or anything else.) So even if this is possible, it won't do anything to their behavior.

But as was also stated, the DM ultimately went with it, which trumps anything we can say here.

Actually, it depends of if you're using LM for all your resources on Undead. In which case that could be reasonable.

And of course I think that's a creative and fun use! If I were DMing I'd allow it. Once. Creativity should be rewarded.

[Drelua]

...and would only be successful on a willing target, as funny as it might be otherwise...

*Rolls bluff* "Oh man, some of your hair turned grey. If you'll just let me fix that, I know the perfect spell."
"Oh, okay, thanks."
"...and there. Your hair's now a beautiful shade of PURPLE!" *runs like hell*

See, as long as you have bluff, it's easy with a little help from narcissism. :smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

It makes sense by the Rule of Funny, which is strictly superior to Rules as Written.
Depends on the game. A game going for a more serious tone might send Rule of Funny packing, trotting it out in small doses to heighten the drama.

[molten_dragon]

I recently played a Pathfinder game in which one of our players, a Wizard, used Prestidigitation to flavor the necks of several zombies as brain. The DM thought it was funny so went along with it, and had the zombies bite each other for mouthfuls of delicious brain flavoured flesh.

Does this actually make sense rules wise?

It doesn't make sense by RAW, but it absolutely makes sense by rule of cool.

[nbates]

Definitely a win as far as rule 0 goes. If I were DM, I would totally have ruled the same, but let the player know it probably wouldn't work again as planned.

The sorcerer in my group always succeeds at putting a beanie with a propeller on my head... I usually fail my perception check to notice :smallsmile:

It doesn't affect the game at all, just flavor fun.