Could you survive on Stone to Flesh?

[Scubasteve0209]

Say your PCs are stuck in a mountainous wasteland devoid of all life, or deep in a cavern where nothing has lived for a millennium.

Their rations slowly start to dwindle until they begin to starve. Could a creative wizard save the day with Stobe to Flesh, creating the fantasy equivalent of Spam?

[Knaight]

As far as I know, there has never been a rules clarification on this from above. Which basically means that you can rule as you wish - I'd be inclined to have it work as a GM, though the meat will probably taste like crap. If you want to be more difficult, demand a carving in the shape of an animal first.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Ewwwwwwwwww. But clever.

[Trickquestion]

Never seen an official rule on this, but as a DM who likes to reward ingenuity, I'd let it fly.

[Scubasteve0209]

Technically it'd be vegan too, since it doesn't come from any animals. Couldn't be worse than a few if the meat substitutes I've tried.

[Ravens_cry]

If you want more than magic spam, make a statue of a cow, lamb, pig or whatever your meat of choice is. Sculptures are explicitly said to turn into corpses.

[Kane0]

More importantly, why hasn't the wizard learned summon bacon by that point?

[A Tad Insane]

Well, since a statue is turned into a corpse, it stands to reason that you could do that. You could then sell it as soil green, unless that counts as copy right infringement

[AstralFire]

That doesn't sound very Gneiss.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

More importantly, why hasn't the wizard learned summon bacon by that point?
This is true. Summon monster spells would make significantly tastier food.

(Of course, Prestidigitation could make it tasty no matter what it was.)

[TheCountAlucard]

Worked just fine in NetHack. :smallamused:

[Arbane]

This is true. Summon monster spells would make significantly tastier food.

I think Summoned creatures' corpses vanish when the spell's up or they die.

[Erik Vale]

I think Summoned creatures' corpses vanish when the spell's up or they die.

Angel had a solution for that. Since Werewolves were only transformed on the full moon while alive, they ate the werewolf while it was alive.

This doesn't stop it from disappearing from your stomach, leaving you with the makings for lots of ulcers.

[holywhippet]

Wait, you mean the party doesn't have a cleric or a druid? Either can cast spells that could summon forth food. Well, technically the druid needs to find some fresh berries to pick to cast goodberry.

[Xuc Xac]

How long can you live on an all meat diet? I think they'll just starve more slowly and maybe live long enough to die of scurvy.

[Berenger]

No problem. Plants are creatures and my english-german dictionary tells me that "Fruchtfleisch" = "flesh [bot.]". So RAW you can have delicious fruit corpses (https://www.google.de/search?q=dried+fruits&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1ymPUp_jIMWHtQag4YHYBA&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=697) whenever you like.

[TuggyNE]

No problem. Plants are creatures and my english-german dictionary tells me that "Fruchtfleisch" = "flesh [bot.]". So RAW you can have delicious fruit corpses (https://www.google.de/search?q=dried+fruits&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1ymPUp_jIMWHtQag4YHYBA&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=697) whenever you like.

I trust you're not serious about this, because to my knowledge idiomatic English would never refer to plant products as "corpses".

[Berenger]

Dark, wrinkly, revenge from beyond the grave - if the dried prune isn't the Mummy of Fruits, I'll eat my hat.

But in earnest, flesh still refers to the edible portion of a fruit or vegetable, plants are still life forms and Stone to Flesh says nothing about animal life forms.

[Mastikator]

You could still die from dehydration, and meat alone doesn't have all the nutrients the body needs.

If there's no water then the Stone to Flesh doesn't help, if there is then it's a good way to survive for a few weeks more.

A wizard with 5th level spells can teleport though, so.. yeah, just teleport out.

[TuggyNE]

But in earnest, flesh still refers to the edible portion of a fruit or vegetable, plants are still life forms and Stone to Flesh says nothing about animal life forms.

That's great and all, but the spell name is not solely indicative of what it does. What it does say is this:
The spell also can convert a mass of stone into a fleshy substance. Such flesh is inert and lacking a vital life force unless a life force or magical energy is available. (For example, this spell would turn a stone golem into a flesh golem, but an ordinary statue would become a corpse.)

[Sidmen]

That's great and all, but the spell name is not solely indicative of what it does. What it does say is this: Strictly speaking, it still says "fleshy substance" which would still be in line with fruit. After all, an apple's flesh is the yellow-white part under its skin.

Almost certainly going to be a GM call, but if you cast Stone to Flesh on a carving of grapevines, I can't see any reason it wouldn't turn into a real (dead) grapevine.

[Mastikator]

The only thing the flesh of a fruit and the flesh of an animal has in common is the name. The flesh of a fruit is not muscle tissue or even fat tissue. Saying that Stone to Flesh would convert a statue of an orange into an orange is semantic trickery.

[SiuiS]

You could still die from dehydration, and meat alone doesn't have all the nutrients the body needs.

If there's no water then the Stone to Flesh doesn't help, if there is then it's a good way to survive for a few weeks more.

A wizard with 5th level spells can teleport though, so.. yeah, just teleport out.

Corpses have blood. Blood has water. So does meat, actually.


Strictly speaking, it still says "fleshy substance" which would still be in line with fruit. After all, an apple's flesh is the yellow-white part under its skin.

Strictly speaking, a statue will become a corpse, and there is no such thing as a fruit corpse. You can turn a wall into fleshy substance, or a statue into a corpse, but that's it. You can't turn a statue of an apple into an apple, because apple corpse doesn't happen. You'd get either fleshy substance, or more likely, a chunk of apple shaped steak (because it's a statue, and statues become corpses).


Almost certainly going to be a GM call, but if you cast Stone to Flesh on a carving of grapevines, I can't see any reason it wouldn't turn into a real (dead) grapevine.

They aren't corpses.
You'd have to make a house rule separating statues from sculptures. Heh.

[TuggyNE]

Almost certainly going to be a GM call, but if you cast Stone to Flesh on a carving of grapevines, I can't see any reason it wouldn't turn into a real (dead) grapevine.

There is no GM call, for the reasons given, any more than there's a GM call to allow you to use your Jump skill to solve a mystery. After all, you can jump to conclusions!

[SiuiS]

Actually, does any known plant creature grow edible fruit-parts? Only living creatures leave corpses, but plant creatures count.

[Tengu_temp]

In Nethack, casting Stone to Flesh on rocks turns them into meatballs. I don't think they're very healthy or tasty, but it's still better than starving.


No problem. Plants are creatures and my english-german dictionary tells me that "Fruchtfleisch" = "flesh [bot.]". So RAW you can have delicious fruit corpses (https://www.google.de/search?q=dried+fruits&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1ymPUp_jIMWHtQag4YHYBA&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=697) whenever you like.

It doesn't work like that, no matter if you go with Rules As Written, Rules As Intended, or Rules As Any Same DM Interprets Them.

[Radar]

How long can you live on an all meat diet? I think they'll just starve more slowly and maybe live long enough to die of scurvy.
Surprisingly, you can live like that for quite a long time, if we consider the traditional diet of various arctic and subarctic tribes. You do need to get some water to go with the meat, which is a bit trickier without the access to Cleric or Druid spell list.

edit: obviously you can use True Creation to create some water, but it's far from being efficient.

[Sidmen]

The only thing the flesh of a fruit and the flesh of an animal has in common is the name. The flesh of a fruit is not muscle tissue or even fat tissue. Saying that Stone to Flesh would convert a statue of an orange into an orange is semantic trickery.

Huh, and here I was thinking that D&D was a roleplaying game with imagination in the forefront. It says "a fleshy substance" not meat, not bone, nothing else. It does give two examples - stone golem into flesh golem, and statue into corpse. Following those lines of thought can lead a DM to make the call that a sculpture of fruit would turn into fruit.


There is no GM call, for the reasons given, any more than there's a GM call to allow you to use your Jump skill to solve a mystery. After all, you can jump to conclusions! Were there any reasons given? So far, all I've seen is "Flesh = Meat and Bodies" whilst completely ignoring the "for example" part of that sentence.

[paddyfool]

How long can you live on an all meat diet? I think they'll just starve more slowly and maybe live long enough to die of scurvy.

Actually, you can get Vitamin C from meat, if you eat it raw :P

Constipation might be a more pressing concern...

[Necroticplague]

Yes, you could. Small rocks become meatballs, while boulders becoming gigantic hunks of meat.

[Dunditschia]

How long can you live on an all meat diet? I think they'll just starve more slowly and maybe live long enough to die of scurvy.

If you can get organ meat (livers and such) you could survive indefinitely. Just like most mammal carnivores.

The description is unclear, on the one hand it says:
"The spell also can convert a mass of stone into a fleshy substance."
But it also says:
"an ordinary statue would become a corpse"

If such a corpse would just be a generic mass of meat, nutrient deficiencies would certainly set in, but if the DM rules that a corpse cannot be a corpse without organs, all nutrients could be accounted for. You might need some knowledge to eat the organs and meat in the right proportions, though.

[Yuki Akuma]

Just don't rely entirely on the party Barbarian's adorable stone bunny sculptures, or you'll starve.

[Mastikator]

Corpses have blood. Blood has water. So does meat, actually.


Too much salt (from flesh) and not enough water makes brainy go coco. I don't doubt that if you try to survive on nothing but raw meat you'd die.

[Ravens_cry]

Too much salt (from flesh) and not enough water makes brainy go coco. I don't doubt that if you try to survive on nothing but raw meat you'd die.
Eh, Inuit survived just fine in the winter, and 'raw meat' pretty much describes their diet in that time of the year.

[Radar]

Eh, Inuit survived just fine in the winter, and 'raw meat' pretty much describes their diet in that time of the year.
They do drink water or at least eat soups to hydrate themselves.

[OracleofWuffing]

Too much salt (from flesh) and not enough water makes brainy go coco. I don't doubt that if you try to survive on nothing but raw meat you'd die.
I know in D&D 3.5, starvation and thirst only deals nonlethal damage, so you wouldn't die, just fall unconscious until someone comes along and flicks your nose. then you'd die from that.

[SiuiS]

Surprisingly, you can live like that for quite a long time, if we consider the traditional diet of various arctic and subarctic tribes. You do need to get some water to go with the meat, which is a bit trickier without the access to Cleric or Druid spell list.

edit: obviously you can use True Creation to create some water, but it's far from being efficient.

You need fatty animals though. You could not live off hates, but you could live off of walruses. Or lobsters. Or shambling mounds.


Huh, and here I was thinking that D&D was a roleplaying game with imagination in the forefront.

When discussing rules, you aren't discussing the game in action. You're asking about the base mathematical outputs. Those are clear. You can certainly change something to for your game, but it is important to note when it is a change from standard. Stone to flesh making fruit is not an alternate reading; it is a change.

Going by imagination, the spell is a reverse of flesh to stone and can restore life to petrified victims but little else, really. Anything beyond that and you're getting into word interpretation, not role playing and imagination. It's not an IC open question, only a meta and OOC one.


It says "a fleshy substance" not meat, not bone, nothing else. It does give two examples - stone golem into flesh golem, and statue into corpse. Following those lines of thought can lead a DM to make the call that a sculpture of fruit would turn into fruit.

A statue of a fruit would turn into a corpse. The end (RAW).
Colloquially, only living. Creatures leave corpses. By the strict rules, only living creatures and/or monsters leave corpses. There is no method other than word association and hope that renders this into fruit. "Fleshy substance" isn't meat? You're right, it's fleshy substance. Which is also not fruit. Semantics is no fun like that.


Were there any reasons given? So far, all I've seen is "Flesh = Meat and Bodies" whilst completely ignoring the "for example" part of that sentence.

Statue into corpse is pretty clear, unfortunately, because "corpse" is also a games mechanic term, as opposed to just what we call a living thing that dies.


If you can get organ meat (livers and such) you could survive indefinitely. Just like most mammal carnivores.

The description is unclear, on the one hand it says:
"The spell also can convert a mass of stone into a fleshy substance."
But it also says:
"an ordinary statue would become a corpse"

If such a corpse would just be a generic mass of meat, nutrient deficiencies would certainly set in, but if the DM rules that a corpse cannot be a corpse without organs, all nutrients could be accounted for. You might need some knowledge to eat the organs and meat in the right proportions, though.

The only difference between stone to flesh on a statue and on a petrified person is the person provides animation since they need technically die. It's reasonable to expect an intact corpse.


Too much salt (from flesh) and not enough water makes brainy go coco. I don't doubt that if you try to survive on nothing but raw meat you'd die.

That's why I said blood. Just s2f a sea turtle, their blood is pretty drinkable.


I know in D&D 3.5, starvation and thirst only deals nonlethal damage, so you wouldn't die, just fall unconscious until someone comes along and flicks your nose. then you'd die from that.

I thought rules compendium made privation eventually kill you?

[OracleofWuffing]

I thought rules compendium made privation eventually kill you?
Hm, sounds like it does.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

In Nethack, casting Stone to Flesh on rocks turns them into meatballs. I don't think they're very healthy or tasty, but it's still better than starving.
Nethack. Thinks. Of. EVERYTHING.

[Astral Avenger]

How long can you live on an all meat diet? I think they'll just starve more slowly and maybe live long enough to die of scurvy.
well... generations with the right meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet) (and eating almost every part of the animals and admittedly not quite entirely meat)

[Sebastrd]

I'd allow the spell to create dead fruit from fruit statues, and I really don't care what other DMs think about that. Do what you want in your games; but if you're going to reward ingenuity by allowing unconventional spell uses based on semantics, it's hypocritical to allow one and not the other.

[Jan Mattys]

Stupid question: if I cast Stone to Flesh on a Statue (that is, not a human previously turned to stone, but an actual statue carved by an artist), what do I get?

a) a proper corpse, with bones, blood, brain, flesh and skin?
or
b) 75-80 Kgs of tasteless meat in the shape of a human?

Because the rules seem to suggest a, but common sense strongly supports b instead.

For example: imagine you cast stone to flesh on a dragon statue. What do you get? If you get a dead dragon, that's a great source of dragonscales, almost for free... And I am sure that's not the worst you can do if the DM says you get a full corpse out of a statue.

What do you playgrounders think?

[Necroticplague]

Stupid question: if I cast Stone to Flesh on a Statue (that is, not a human previously turned to stone, but an actual statue carved by an artist), what do I get?

a) a proper corpse, with bones, blood, brain, flesh and skin?
or
b) 75-80 Kgs of tasteless meat in the shape of a human?

Because the rules seem to suggest a, but common sense strongly supports b instead.

For example: imagine you cast stone to flesh on a dragon statue. What do you get? If you get a dead dragon, that's a great source of dragonscales, almost for free... And I am sure that's not the worst you can do if the DM says you get a full corpse out of a statue.

What do you playgrounders think?
I believe the rules imply a. Isn't this the base of vegan necromancy? Make statues with fabricate, stone to flesh results, animate those results.

[Scubasteve0209]

For example: imagine you cast stone to flesh on a dragon statue. What do you get? If you get a dead dragon, that's a great source of dragonscales, almost for free... And I am sure that's not the worst you can do if the DM says you get a full corpse out of a statue.

What do you playgrounders think?

Ooh, you could stone shape a Tarrasque, cast stone to flesh and make tons of gold off the corpse.

[Sebastrd]

Stupid question: if I cast Stone to Flesh on a Statue (that is, not a human previously turned to stone, but an actual statue carved by an artist), what do I get?

a) a proper corpse, with bones, blood, brain, flesh and skin?
or
b) 75-80 Kgs of tasteless meat in the shape of a human?

Because the rules seem to suggest a, but common sense strongly supports b instead.

For example: imagine you cast stone to flesh on a dragon statue. What do you get? If you get a dead dragon, that's a great source of dragonscales, almost for free... And I am sure that's not the worst you can do if the DM says you get a full corpse out of a statue.

What do you playgrounders think?

Earlier editions explicitly indicated it would be B.

[NecroRebel]

If you could get a real corpse from casting StF on a statue, and it would be possible to make a statue of a plant creature to get one of those corpses, couldn't you get fruit by making a statue of for instance an awakened or otherwise animated fruit tree in its bearing state? That would solve a lot of the trickiness with nutrition, and sidesteps the problem of dead plants not being "corpses" as such.

[TuggyNE]

If you could get a real corpse from casting StF on a statue, and it would be possible to make a statue of a plant creature to get one of those corpses, couldn't you get fruit by making a statue of for instance an awakened or otherwise animated fruit tree in its bearing state? That would solve a lot of the trickiness with nutrition, and sidesteps the problem of dead plants not being "corpses" as such.

How does the spell know you made a statue of an animated plant, rather than of a regular plant? Does it look at the little plaque you engraved, or something? :smallconfused:

[NecroRebel]

How does the spell know you made a statue of an animated plant, rather than of a regular plant? Does it look at the little plaque you engraved, or something? :smallconfused:

The spell doesn't specify how detailed a statue has to be to create a corpse rather than a rock, does it? By the text, it'd be valid to say that a very rough, stylized form would create a corpse, even if the stylization would make it equally likely to be a human, elf, or orc statue. So what kind of corpse does such a statue make? I'd say that it probably works off of the caster's interpretation of the statue.

[Cerlis]

I always like the idea of healing wounds by putting a bit of rock dust in your wound (painful!) and then casting the spell. Make sure you even out your future flesh with your skin!

Course bit of a waste of a high lvl spell. Kinda desperate

[TuggyNE]

The spell doesn't specify how detailed a statue has to be to create a corpse rather than a rock, does it? By the text, it'd be valid to say that a very rough, stylized form would create a corpse, even if the stylization would make it equally likely to be a human, elf, or orc statue. So what kind of corpse does such a statue make? I'd say that it probably works off of the caster's interpretation of the statue.

It creates a corpse in all cases if cast upon regular stone that doesn't have some sort of animating force. The corpse it creates is extremely anonymous and bland, basically just a straight stone-to-flesh conversion*, nothing more. No interpretation by the spell of the caster's intent is needed: it simply transmutes one substance directly into another.

Put another way, if you make a crude statue of an orc and cast stone to flesh on it, you get a crude corpse that looks a fair bit like an orc... you don't get an excellent exemplar of an orc corpse, because the spell doesn't care whether it's an orc, an elf, or what. All it cares about is that it used to be stone, and now it is meat.

*See what I did there? :smalltongue:

[NecroRebel]

Put another way, if you make a crude statue of an orc and cast stone to flesh on it, you get a crude corpse that looks a fair bit like an orc... you don't get an excellent exemplar of an orc corpse, because the spell doesn't care whether it's an orc, an elf, or what. All it cares about is that it used to be stone, and now it is meat.

Let me ask this way, then: if you were to carve a rock into a form that had two legs, two arms, and a head but otherwise had no details at all, then smoothed the shapes out so that the statue was the very most archetypical humanoid form but had absolutely no defining traits whatsoever, and then cast Stone to Flesh on it, what would you get?

That would clearly be a statue, and the spell clearly states that it would turn the statue into a corpse. Would the corpse so created be similarly generic and featureless? Possibly; the text doesn't cover that. The text would cover such a statue becoming the corpse of a particular kind of humanoid as well.

Necroticplague mentioned vegan necromancy above, and in order for that to work a statue has to be able to turn into a specific kind of corpse, so where does the line between a stylized form and a representational form mean the statue so created goes from a generic corpse to a specific type of corpse? If there is no such point, if a stylized form always creates an animatable corpse which can actually refer to MM stats, then it seems equally reasonable to say that a stylized statue of an animated apple tree (stylized as in "it looks exactly like one, but also exactly like an inanimate apple tree") can be turned into the corpse of an animated apple tree.



Of course, the rules text would also suggest that a Stone to Flesh spell would be capable of turning a statue of vines into a corpse, which doesn't make much sense at all, so I may well be overthinking things :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

Let me ask this way, then: if you were to carve a rock into a form that had two legs, two arms, and a head but otherwise had no details at all, then smoothed the shapes out so that the statue was the very most archetypical humanoid form but had absolutely no defining traits whatsoever, and then cast Stone to Flesh on it, what would you get?

That would clearly be a statue, and the spell clearly states that it would turn the statue into a corpse. Would the corpse so created be similarly generic and featureless? Possibly; the text doesn't cover that. The text would cover such a statue becoming the corpse of a particular kind of humanoid as well.

Necroticplague mentioned vegan necromancy above, and in order for that to work a statue has to be able to turn into a specific kind of corpse, so where does the line between a stylized form and a representational form mean the statue so created goes from a generic corpse to a specific type of corpse? If there is no such point, if a stylized form always creates an animatable corpse which can actually refer to MM stats, then it seems equally reasonable to say that a stylized statue of an animated apple tree (stylized as in "it looks exactly like one, but also exactly like an inanimate apple tree") can be turned into the corpse of an animated apple tree.

Oh, I see what you're saying. I hadn't thought of the implications for necromancy, but upon consideration it certainly seems it wouldn't work, since the corpse so created has no particular characteristics of whatever it was shaped like except its appearance. It probably does not even have a skeletal system, making it inapplicable for a number of templates.

In other words, I don't consider there to be any line between a stylized and a representational form; both are equally ineffective at getting "an orc corpse" or "a lizardfolk corpse" or "a great wyrm blue dragon corpse". Without some animating principle, as with a stone->flesh golem, there simply isn't the needed information and the spell makes no provisions for supplying it.

[Kane0]

I'd be willing to say that if one actually puts point into Craft (Sculpture) then one could make a likeness close enough to be S2F'd into an actual corpse, with its quality based on the check.

Gotta have some use for a skill like that, right?

[SiuiS]

Stupid question: if I cast Stone to Flesh on a Statue (that is, not a human previously turned to stone, but an actual statue carved by an artist), what do I get?

a) a proper corpse, with bones, blood, brain, flesh and skin?
or
b) 75-80 Kgs of tasteless meat in the shape of a human?

Because the rules seem to suggest a, but common sense strongly supports b instead.

For example: imagine you cast stone to flesh on a dragon statue. What do you get? If you get a dead dragon, that's a great source of dragonscales, almost for free... And I am sure that's not the worst you can do if the DM says you get a full corpse out of a statue.

What do you playgrounders think?

By the rules, given that a corpse is a defined thing, you get A. I mean, it says statues make corpses, and corpses are dead creatures, so you make a dead creature. Weird but followable.


Earlier editions explicitly indicated it would be B.

Did they? Unfortunately, the insular nature of 3.5 makes it the prime source for these sorts of things. I find it problematic sometimes, but it's the nature of the beast.


If you could get a real corpse from casting StF on a statue, and it would be possible to make a statue of a plant creature to get one of those corpses, couldn't you get fruit by making a statue of for instance an awakened or otherwise animated fruit tree in its bearing state? That would solve a lot of the trickiness with nutrition, and sidesteps the problem of dead plants not being "corpses" as such.


Actually, does any known plant creature grow edible fruit-parts? Only living creatures leave corpses, but plant creatures count.

:smallwink:


How does the spell know you made a statue of an animated plant, rather than of a regular plant? Does it look at the little plaque you engraved, or something? :smallconfused:

Mm. I understand your reticence, but if you make a statue of an animated tree, it becomes a dead animated tree. It doesn't matter how the spell does anything in game. From the outside in, is clear we are working with keywords and tags. The trick would probably be in making. A statue of a tree cannot be mistaken for an animated tree, but a statue of an animated tree (as in, made to be one) would be one.


It creates a corpse in all cases if cast upon regular stone that doesn't have some sort of animating force. The corpse it creates is extremely anonymous and bland, basically just a straight stone-to-flesh conversion*, nothing more. No interpretation by the spell of the caster's intent is needed: it simply transmutes one substance directly into another.

Put another way, if you make a crude statue of an orc and cast stone to flesh on it, you get a crude corpse that looks a fair bit like an orc... you don't get an excellent exemplar of an orc corpse, because the spell doesn't care whether it's an orc, an elf, or what. All it cares about is that it used to be stone, and now it is meat.

*See what I did there? :smalltongue:

Mm. I disagree. Corpse is a rules thing, elf and Orc are as well, and they are descriptors. An elf statue should become an elf corpse. It's the same problem as getting fruit from a wall, earlier; either you go strict RAW and get an elf corpse, or you go by what feels good in which case you could probably get an elf corpse – or at that point make an apple.

[Asheram]

Could a creative wizard save the day with Stobe to Flesh, creating the fantasy equivalent of Spam?

'course you could. The flesh contains protein and liquid enough to sustain you until you, as staded above, develop something like scurvy.
But I imagine you could survive for about 2-4 months of it before you get really ill.

[LibraryOgre]

I would allow you to survive on it as well as you could survive on any all-meat diet.

[Scow2]

The only thing the flesh of a fruit and the flesh of an animal has in common is the name. The flesh of a fruit is not muscle tissue or even fat tissue. Saying that Stone to Flesh would convert a statue of an orange into an orange is semantic trickery.
Actually, there's a lot in common between the flesh of a fruit and flesh of an animal. Namely, both are edible portions of biomass.

If you're a catfolk or other feline or carnivorous creature, you don't have to worry about Scurvy or other deficiencies because the liver makes Vitamin C naturally (Another way felines are superior to humans. Why aren't people cats, again?)

[MonochromeTiger]

(Another way felines are superior to humans. Why aren't people cats, again?)

some people are just too lazy to try. but on topic it doesn't take too much for a person to survive in terms of food, our bodies were originally designed to be able to go long distances between meals due to our hunter/gatherer origins and our mammal predatory origins before that. cutting out physical exertion such as having to leave a small space allows fat to be generated more easily as it's not being burned to produce the necessary energy for such acts and instead is focused on the energy needed to keep alive. the intake of a constant food source such as the one mentioned in this thread provides a means of keeping that cycle of create then burn going. honestly I'd be more worried about water.

[Scow2]

honestly I'd be more worried about water.Which isn't really a problem due to the high water content in meat.

[MonochromeTiger]

Which isn't really a problem due to the high water content in meat.

which is questionable as the other contents of an inert stone material being transmuted into a flesh like material.

[Isamu Dyson]

I'll take opposable digits over fur any day of the week :smalltongue:.

[MonochromeTiger]

I'll take opposable digits over fur any day of the week :smalltongue:.

yes but what if those opposable digits had CLAWS. huh? huh? what then?

[Knaight]

If you're a catfolk or other feline or carnivorous creature, you don't have to worry about Scurvy or other deficiencies because the liver makes Vitamin C naturally (Another way felines are superior to humans. Why aren't people cats, again?)

The applicability of scurvy at all to a D&D setting is questionable to begin with. They generally have creation stories that are assumed to be true for the various species which don't tend to include the factors that actually caused scurvy to be an issue - specifically the loss of vitamin C production in ape populations from which humans came, for whom vitamin C production was completely useless due to a diet that basically consisted of fruit, nuts, more fruit, fruit, more fruit, maybe more nuts, and additional fruit.

[magwaaf]

all you need is a decent ranger

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/allfood

good spell, always useful

[SiuiS]

Wrong game.

[TheCountAlucard]

Wrong game.

Actually, since this is just in Roleplaying Games, and not in the 3.5 forum, and since the OP doesn't specify an edition…

[Ravens_cry]

Muktuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muktuk), (whale skin and blubber) is a source of vitamin C, as is raw calf liver (http://www.news-medical.net/health/Sources-of-Vitamin-C.aspx), though oysters are close and likely more palatable to most western cultures' tastes.

Actually, since this is just in Roleplaying Games, and not in the 3.5 forum, and since the OP doesn't specify an edition… Pathfinder Stone to Flesh (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/stone-to-flesh) only makes 'spam', so no corpses.

[No brains]

The way I would imagine this is that when a creature is subjected to a flesh to stone effect, all its different parts (bones, blood, neurons, etc.) turn into subtly different stones. This is why a human turned to stone can be turned back into a human that is suitable for a soul to pilot.

So when you cast stone to flesh on a piece of stone, you get its equivalent kind of flesh. Because Medusa turns people into marble statues, some form of marble must equate to human flesh. Because coal (does that count as stone?) is made from a mush-mash of all kinds of organisms, you get casserole out of it with an casting of the spell.

One fun way to use this idea is in the ecology of Dwarven settlements and the under dark. Dwarves can tell the most pedantic differences between rocks, and so can create balanced nutrition depending upon what they mine. Drow on the other hand could make their palaces by grinding slaves into pink slime and then petrifying them into quality marble.

One thing that is bizarre about this is the question of where a soul goes when a creature is petrified. It could be that a soul is always drawn to its body whenever the body is in working order. So imagine if there was a fossilized animal in a rock someone desperately tired to eat. Would the spell repair the flesh into an adequately functional animal?

Another paradox is using this spell with rock salt. :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

The way I would imagine this is that when a creature is subjected to a flesh to stone effect, all its different parts (bones, blood, neurons, etc.) turn into subtly different stones. This is why a human turned to stone can be turned back into a human that is suitable for a soul to pilot.

So when you cast stone to flesh on a piece of stone, you get its equivalent kind of flesh. Because Medusa turns people into marble statues, some form of marble must equate to human flesh. Because coal (does that count as stone?) is made from a mush-mash of all kinds of organisms, you get casserole out of it with an casting of the spell.

Now that's an intriguing and consistent idea.

[TheOOB]

Now that's an intriguing and consistent idea.

Not to kill cat-girls and get science involved, but meat doesn't provide energy because it's meat, it provides energy because it has energy, it was part of a living thing that got it's energy from plants, which in exchange got it's energy from the sun. The best parts of meat are usually the part where the most energy is, fat and muscle.

I'm not convinced rock meat has any energy, it would be like trying to eat all gristle, tendons, and skin.

[SiuiS]

Actually, since this is just in Roleplaying Games, and not in the 3.5 forum, and since the OP doesn't specify an edition…

Oh! My faux pas,I must have checked the wrong tab when verifying that. Sorry. ^^


Muktuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muktuk), (whale skin and blubber) is a source of vitamin C, as is raw calf liver (http://www.news-medical.net/health/Sources-of-Vitamin-C.aspx), though oysters are close and likely more palatable to most western cultures' tastes.
Pathfinder Stone to Flesh (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/stone-to-flesh) only makes 'spam', so no corpses.

Ah, well at least that's definitive.


Not to kill cat-girls and get science involved, but meat doesn't provide energy because it's meat, it provides energy because it has energy, it was part of a living thing that got it's energy from plants, which in exchange got it's energy from the sun. The best parts of meat are usually the part where the most energy is, fat and muscle.

I'm not convinced rock meat has any energy, it would be like trying to eat all gristle, tendons, and skin.

Well, now. Meat gives energy because it is made of protein strands which are digestible. It may not be very good meat – I doubt it will be plump and marbleized, for one – but it still fulfills the basic requirements just by existing. There is also that a lot of the need to eat is replenishing biomass, which rock meat would do. A human can survive (but not thrive!) on very little for a long time. You jut need to prevent your body from cannibalizing itself too much.

I find it hilarious however, how many people treat this as being perfectly okay. "I only take penalties if I don't drink every three days, right? So I'll drink every other day and stretch out my rations! Humans can survive on that!" But that survival sucks, it hurts, and you feel like crap the whole time.



Really though, this whole thing would be solved by either making it create it's own tissue every time, or only being targetable on a statue in the first place. Stone to flesh was supposed to be a restorative, in theme.

[TheOOB]

I find it hilarious however, how many people treat this as being perfectly okay. "I only take penalties if I don't drink every three days, right? So I'll drink every other day and stretch out my rations! Humans can survive on that!" But that survival sucks, it hurts, and you feel like crap the whole time.

I have a simple rule, if it's available you must consume the proper amount of food and water.

[Radar]

Not to kill cat-girls and get science involved, but meat doesn't provide energy because it's meat, it provides energy because it has energy, it was part of a living thing that got it's energy from plants, which in exchange got it's energy from the sun. The best parts of meat are usually the part where the most energy is, fat and muscle.

I'm not convinced rock meat has any energy, it would be like trying to eat all gristle, tendons, and skin.
We are talking about magic turning whatever minerals into organic material with vastly different chemical composition, so tossing out energy conservation out of the window is a default assumption. Physics cowers in a corner and cries itself to sleep. If anyone asks why, it sobs a wizard did it.

At any rate, it doesn't matter, how it is made: meat is a meat, is a meat.

Fun fact: we can currently grow meat in a lab independently of any living creature.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Say your PCs are stuck in a mountainous wasteland devoid of all life, or deep in a cavern where nothing has lived for a millennium.

Their rations slowly start to dwindle until they begin to starve. Could a creative wizard save the day with Stobe to Flesh, creating the fantasy equivalent of Spam?

I haven't read through most of the thread yet, but I wanted to pitch in an idea. I once had a plot where there was a wizard making tons of money selling cheap meat made from Stone to Flesh, but it was gradually calcifying the people eating the food. The PCs discovered it by getting called to a village to help cure the "mysterious gradual petrification disease", but here your PCs would be patient zero... if you wanted to go with it.

[HMS Invincible]

What resources do you have available, in this instance I believe the real question is what magic do you have other than Stone to Flesh.

[Joe the Rat]

Dwarves can tell the most pedantic differences between rocks, and so can create balanced nutrition depending upon what they mine.


Well, now. Meat gives energy because it is made of protein strands which are digestible. It may not be very good meat – I doubt it will be plump and marbleized, for one – but it still fulfills the basic requirements just by existing. I think you've found the answer to that one. Obviously you want to use high-quality stone for your gourmet flesh-creations.


Another paradox is using this spell with rock salt. :smalltongue:You get rock-jerky.

[No brains]

I'm glad my idea was well received.:smallsmile:

Speaking of marbling, here's some more food for thought-experiment. Maybe these could be special exceptions to my theory.:smalltongue:
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7900351744/hDF1666B6/
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7884686848/h2B229FE1/
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7884700672/hEAB0D1CC/
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7896454144/hC3CE1052/
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7896698624/hF338D8C2/


As for the rock salt joke, it has to do with flesh to salt shenanigans from sandstorm. There's more info on it in other threads.

[Ravens_cry]

I think that really just makes things more complicated than it needs to be.
A sculpture making a corpse works just fine with me.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Not to kill cat-girls and get science involved, but meat doesn't provide energy because it's meat, it provides energy because it has energy, it was part of a living thing that got it's energy from plants, which in exchange got it's energy from the sun. The best parts of meat are usually the part where the most energy is, fat and muscle.

I'm not convinced rock meat has any energy, it would be like trying to eat all gristle, tendons, and skin.
The energy actually probably comes from magic.

[Scow2]

We are talking about magic turning whatever minerals into organic material with vastly different chemical composition, so tossing out energy conservation out of the window is a default assumption. Physics cowers in a corner and cries itself to sleep. If anyone asks why, it sobs a wizard did it.

At any rate, it doesn't matter, how it is made: meat is a meat, is a meat.

Fun fact: we can currently grow meat in a lab independently of any living creature.Actually, energy is conserved with magic. The original post merely ignored the complexities of chemical composition (Tip: NOT all energy needs to come from a complex chain from the sun. Any chemical reaction works)

The spell-preparation process concentrates Divine or Arcane energy into Potential Energy in the form of a spell of the appropriate level. When Stone-To-Flesh is cast on an object, the tremendous spell energy used converts the assorted mineral compositions into meat/flesh. The only 'lack of conservation' is merely the constant inflow of magical power from outside the system (Which isn't closed, anyway) - and that's no less a conservation of energy than the constant inflow of Solar energy to Earth.

[Isamu Dyson]

This is why you pack tons of lembas bread.

[MonochromeTiger]

This is why you pack tons of lembas bread.

lembas bread: tastes like rock, really filling. not to be confused with dwarf bread.

dwarf bread: feels, looks, acts, and (hopefully) tastes like a rock, you get full off the hope that you will never have to eat it. (also serves as a weapon).

[Another_Poet]

I'd allow the spell to create dead fruit from fruit statues

You know, actually I would too. And here's why.

If you use Flesh to Stone on a plant creature, like an Assassin Vine, it turns to stone. And if you then use Stone to Flesh on it, it doesn't become a pile of hamburger in the shape of a vine, it becomes... an Assassin Vine.

So I would certainly allow carvings of fruit to become fruit. But in keeping with the "corpse" part, it would be mushy and a bit "off." I hope they like apple sauce.

Bonus: oranges are easier to carve than cows.

[Kane0]

You could also bypass the whole situation by wildshaping/polymorphing into a form that can literally eat rocks. Dragons for example.

[MonochromeTiger]

You could also bypass the whole situation by wildshaping/polymorphing into a form that can literally eat rocks. Dragons for example.

stuck in a dwarf mine after a cave in? rust monster polymorph! you will never be hungry again.

[TuggyNE]

If you use Flesh to Stone on a plant creature, like an Assassin Vine, it turns to stone. And if you then use Stone to Flesh on it, it doesn't become a pile of hamburger in the shape of a vine, it becomes... an Assassin Vine.

That's because there's a creature in there, and we do know that stone to flesh restores/transmutes creatures properly no matter what size or shape they are.

Whether this works for non-creature plants is far less certain, as already outlined.

[HMS Invincible]

While you're feeding off of the wizard's spells, I suggest doing serious training matches until the wizard levels up. Then he learns teleport/answer to problem spell. It's cheesy, but it's better than being stuck forever eating stone to flesh corpses.

[Narren]

If can't teleport and you're starving to death, just cast "Flesh to Stone" on your party. But first, cast "Sending" and have an ally show up with several scrolls of "Stone to Flesh" and some ham sandwiches. Doesn't really matter how long he takes, you'll keep.

[Stoic]

I agree with the other posters that you could survive on the meat that Stone to Flesh makes.

But If I were a starving wizard capable of casting level 6 spells instead of casting Stone to Flesh, I would cast Summon Monster VI (Janni).

Once per day a Janni can cast “Create Food and Water”.

[Isamu Dyson]

I agree with the other posters that you could survive on the meat that Stone to Flesh makes.

But If I were a starving wizard capable of casting level 6 spells instead of casting Stone to Flesh, I would cast Summon Monster VI (Janni).

Once per day a Janni can cast “Create Food and Water”.

Does food summoned from a summon persist as much as natural food persists?

You're getting two levels deep in magic here. Hm...and I thought processed chicken nuggets are bad.

[Icewraith]

And here I read the title backwards and was thinking of a party, lost underground, unable to teleport, and long out of rations, with none of the usual spells for getting out of such a mess inconveniently unavailable, flesh-to-stoning themselves in the hope that they might be rescued and leaving scrolls of stone to flesh so their (hopefully good aligned) rescuers can free them.

This is EVEN MORE INTERESTING.

OK, so if you petrify someone, smash the statue, and cast stone to flesh do you end up with bits corresponding to the character's body and posessions or just generic bits of flesh that if scraped together would be the shape of the previously petrified character? How much does the shape matter?

What happens if you petrify someone who is currently polymorphed? Does the statue change back into a statue of the character when the polymorph duration wears off? Do they immediately turn into a statue of their character (since regular polymorph doesn't work on objects last I checked)?

Ok, now for the kicker: What happens if you PAO a rock into a statue with the shape and composition identical to a petrified red dragon (I believe this is permanent)? What if you stone to flesh the red dragon statue? Do you get a live red dragon, a dead red dragon corpse, or a chunk of meat shaped like a red dragon?

[Ravens_cry]

Well, it says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fleshToStone.htm) that "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." I would say that the former, the bits are your bits. As for polymorph, not likely RAW, but I would say the duration pauses while you are Stoned. if you are Polymorphed into a dragon and get FtS, you stay a Dragon as long as you are flesh to Stoned. That's how I'd rule it anyway.

[MonochromeTiger]

Well, it says (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fleshToStone.htm) that "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." I would say that the former, the bits are your bits. As for polymorph, not likely RAW, but I would say the duration pauses while you are Stoned. if you are Polymorphed into a dragon and get FtS, you stay a Dragon as long as you are flesh to Stoned. That's how I'd rule it anyway.

agreeing with ravens cry here. only thing I'm curious on is how someone would look at "you need all the bodyparts to resurrect" style rezzing if you only have one part of a broken victim back to normal.

on the polymorph part the petrified victim is, for all intents and purposes, just a solid stone statue of whatever they were petrified as, if polymorph ending could have such a big effect that they suddenly change into a different form while petrified it would mean it effected the petrification..which would mean it could potentially END the petrification..so in my view it's paused (again in agreement with ravens cry).

question though, let's say you use flesh to stone on someone and then... stoneshape, or perhaps polymorph any object, either way you use the spell to change what the statue appears like, how does that affect the victim if stone to flesh is used after?

[Ravens_cry]

agreeing with ravens cry here. only thing I'm curious on is how someone would look at "you need all the bodyparts to resurrect" style rezzing if you only have one part of a broken victim back to normal.

I would think it fairly obvious. Resurrection spells of that type do not work, while the ones that only need part of a body at most do.



question though, let's say you use flesh to stone on someone and then... stoneshape, or perhaps polymorph any object, either way you use the spell to change what the statue appears like, how does that affect the victim if stone to flesh is used after?
Well, unless the changes are *very* subtle, the results would likely be lethal and likely very painful even if not. After all, your body just got warped into quite the wrong shape, while still having the same material components. Massive internal bleeding and organ damage sound about right.

[The Oni]

I believe the important question is: if you turn someone into a statue with Stone to Flesh, then carve the statue into a sword with a little eye in the center, then cast Flesh to Stone on the sword, do you get Soul Edge?

[MonochromeTiger]

I believe the important question is: if you turn someone into a statue with Stone to Flesh, then carve the statue into a sword with a little eye in the center, then cast Flesh to Stone on the sword, do you get Soul Edge?

aside from the fact that if you go by that order you'd be doing absolutely nothing to the person except carving them up with a knife... no.

if you use flesh to stone first THEN carved then did stone to flesh... still no. but hey there'd be alot less screaming while you carve.

[Ravens_cry]

aside from the fact that if you go by that order you'd be doing absolutely nothing to the person except carving them up with a knife... no.

if you use flesh to stone first THEN carved then did stone to flesh... still no. but hey there'd be alot less screaming while you carve.
After you carve and stone to flesh-ed them back, there'd be only some very brief screaming, but lots and lots of blood.

[The Oni]

aside from the fact that if you go by that order you'd be doing absolutely nothing to the person except carving them up with a knife... no.

if you use flesh to stone first THEN carved then did stone to flesh... still no. but hey there'd be alot less screaming while you carve.

Ah yes, whoops. Important distinction there.

[LibraryOgre]

If can't teleport and you're starving to death, just cast "Flesh to Stone" on your party. But first, cast "Sending" and have an ally show up with several scrolls of "Stone to Flesh" and some ham sandwiches. Doesn't really matter how long he takes, you'll keep.

Unless, of course, you're not playing 3.x; I know with 2e and 1e AD&D, you could risk failing your system shock roll and die from being turned to or from stone.

[MonochromeTiger]

Unless, of course, you're not playing 3.x; I know with 2e and 1e AD&D, you could risk failing your system shock roll and die from being turned to or from stone.

fairly sure there's still a risk of that in 3rd and on, pathfinder for instance has a risk of dieing on being changed back via stone to flesh.

[Ravens_cry]

fairly sure there's still a risk of that in 3rd and on, pathfinder for instance has a risk of dieing on being changed back via stone to flesh.
Even 3.5 has it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneToFlesh.htm).
The creature must make a DC 15 Fortitude save to survive the process.

[AMFV]

Shouldn't a wizard with Stone to Flesh have Teleport? I mean that seems like a better survival tactic, at least to me.

[The Oni]

There are certain locations that can't be teleported to/from.

[MonochromeTiger]

Shouldn't a wizard with Stone to Flesh have Teleport? I mean that seems like a better survival tactic, at least to me.

"oh hey we can get out of here right now instead of eating this disgusting stuff! come on *wizard name here* teleport us out" "...um....barred school.." "...oh hey we can resort to cannibalism instead of eating this disgusting stuff! come on everyone let's kill the wizard!"

[Morbis Meh]

Someone mentioned carving the Tarrasque then casting stone to flesh on the statue thus obtaining the corpse of the Tarrasque but would the corpse stay a corspe? The Tarrasque cannot die and has regeneration so could this be in a fact a method to summon the Tarrasque and create a much more immediate problem than hunger?

[MonochromeTiger]

Someone mentioned carving the Tarrasque then casting stone to flesh on the statue thus obtaining the corpse of the Tarrasque but would the corpse stay a corspe? The Tarrasque cannot die and has regeneration so could this be in a fact a method to summon the Tarrasque and create a much more immediate problem than hunger?

well..it's not really the tarrasque, it's a huge block of meat in the general shape of a tarrasque. if you're working from simple stone all you'd really get from carving and turning it to flesh is...carved flesh in whatever shape you made. if you're working with a person or creature made into stone then carved or shaped and turned back to flesh you get (as ravens cry and lord smeagle's question brought up) a very dead or disfigured person or creature who's still their original type but now has the fun story of how some psychotic spellcaster used them to practice sculpting.

[Ravens_cry]

well..it's not really the tarrasque, it's a huge block of meat in the general shape of a tarrasque. if you're working from simple stone all you'd really get from carving and turning it to flesh is...carved flesh in whatever shape you made. if you're working with a person or creature made into stone then carved or shaped and turned back to flesh you get (as ravens cry and lord smeagle's question brought up) a very dead or disfigured person or creature who's still their original type but now has the fun story of how some psychotic spellcaster used them to practice sculpting.
The former is not RAW, except in Pathfinder. You make a statue of a Terrasque it becomes a corpse of a Terrasque. Since a Terrasque can die (it takes special circumstances but it can happen, at least in 3.5, but not in Pathfinder), I don't see why not. However, it can't be raised as there is no soul to return to it. You can make a rather nice zombie or skeleton though potentially.

[MonochromeTiger]

The former is not RAW, except in Pathfinder. You make a statue of a Terrasque it becomes a corpse of a Terrasque. Since a Terrasque can die (it takes special circumstances but it can happen, at least in 3.5, but not in Pathfinder), I don't see why not. However, it can't be raised as there is no soul to return to it. You can make a rather nice zombie or skeleton though potentially.

ah, my bad most of my experience is in pathfinder. I'm curious, couldn't someone potentially use the flesh to stone victims for making a stone golem?

[Morbis Meh]

The former is not RAW, except in Pathfinder. You make a statue of a Terrasque it becomes a corpse of a Terrasque. Since a Terrasque can die (it takes special circumstances but it can happen, at least in 3.5, but not in Pathfinder), I don't see why not. However, it can't be raised as there is no soul to return to it. You can make a rather nice zombie or skeleton though potentially.

hmmm last time I checked it was 3.5 that the Terrasque couldn't be killed only the use of wish would be able to put it to sleep again...

[TheCountAlucard]

Serious question: where, in the books, does it say that the Tarrasque has a soul, or that it requires said soul to live?

[TuggyNE]

The former is not RAW, except in Pathfinder. You make a statue of a Terrasque it becomes a corpse of a Terrasque.

It becomes a corpse, yes, as previously noted; it does not obviously become a corpse of anything in particular, and assuming it does is overreaching the text.

[Ravens_cry]

It becomes a corpse, yes, as previously noted; it does not obviously become a corpse of anything in particular, and assuming it does is overreaching the text.
Is it? A statue becomes a corpse. Since a corpse has to be OF something, or it's just a meat sculpture, I don't see it as 'overreaching'. I wouldn't let stoneshape do this, as it specifically says it doesn't do fine details though.

[LibraryOgre]

Shouldn't a wizard with Stone to Flesh have Teleport? I mean that seems like a better survival tactic, at least to me.

Again, you assume things not true in all games... just because 3.x allows you to pick whatever spell you want when you level up doesn't mean every system will.

[AMFV]

Again, you assume things not true in all games... just because 3.x allows you to pick whatever spell you want when you level up doesn't mean every system will.

True, but it is much more likely to have Teleportation magic even AD&D and Older D&D than you would Stone to Flesh. I think it would work, but I'd imagine it'd be inefficient, I'm all about efficiency with my spellcasters.

[Another_Poet]

Does food summoned from a summon persist as much as natural food persists?

Yes, it does. The durations of spells cast by summoned creatures are not constrained by the duration of the summon.

[Ravens_cry]

ah, my bad most of my experience is in pathfinder. I'm curious, couldn't someone potentially use the flesh to stone victims for making a stone golem?

Not by RAW (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/constructs/golem/golem-stone), as the construction says it starts with a block of hard stone, such as granite, of exceptional quality (5000 gp quality to be exact) and the final shape is chiselled from that. Personally, as a DM, if you did some alchemical voodoo on the people you fleshed to stone that cost, coincidentally, 5000 gp, I'd allow it, but that's me.

[TuggyNE]

Yes, it does. The durations of spells cast by summoned creatures are not constrained by the duration of the summon.

Er, actually, they are. SLAs too, probably, although it's a bit less clear.
When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire.

[MonochromeTiger]

Not by RAW (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/constructs/golem/golem-stone), as the construction says it starts with a block of hard stone, such as granite, of exceptional quality (5000 gp quality to be exact) and the final shape is chiselled from that. Personally, as a DM, if you did some alchemical voodoo on the people you fleshed to stone that cost, coincidentally, 5000 gp, I'd allow it, but that's me.

well that clears up that random destructive thought, so much for an impromptu golem army.


Er, actually, they are. SLAs too, probably, although it's a bit less clear.

yes but assuming summoned food stays after being consumed like water from the create water spell wouldn't it last as long as people eat it before the summon ends?

also did you and ravens cry spontaneously switch signatures? o_O

[SiuiS]

well..it's not really the tarrasque, it's a huge block of meat in the general shape of a tarrasque. if you're working from simple stone all you'd really get from carving and turning it to flesh is...carved flesh in whatever shape you made. if you're working with a person or creature made into stone then carved or shaped and turned back to flesh you get (as ravens cry and lord smeagle's question brought up) a very dead or disfigured person or creature who's still their original type but now has the fun story of how some psychotic spellcaster used them to practice sculpting.

Nah. As noted, at least two editions of D&D create actual corpses. Or I'm misremembering AD&D.


ah, my bad most of my experience is in pathfinder. I'm curious, couldn't someone potentially use the flesh to stone victims for making a stone golem?

Yes; technically. I think one of the spells mention tunring a flesh golem into a stone golem. But I'm not interested enough to go looking for it.


Serious question: where, in the books, does it say that the Tarrasque has a soul, or that it requires said soul to live?

All creatures have souls, as spelled out by specific creatures being declared functionally Soulless and being unable to benefit from raise dead due to that. Because only creatures which have this caveat lack souls, and the tarrasque does not have that caveat, the tarrasque has a soul.


Is it? A statue becomes a corpse. Since a corpse has to be OF something, or it's just a meat sculpture, I don't see it as 'overreaching'. I wouldn't let stoneshape do this, as it specifically says it doesn't do fine details though.

Aye, actual sculpting with a chisel has been the idea. Or fabricate; either way, craft checks.


Not by RAW (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/constructs/golem/golem-stone), as the construction says it starts with a block of hard stone, such as granite, of exceptional quality (5000 gp quality to be exact) and the final shape is chiselled from that. Personally, as a DM, if you did some alchemical voodoo on the people you fleshed to stone that cost, coincidentally, 5000 gp, I'd allow it, but that's me.

Doesn't stone to flesh specify how it affects flesh golems?


l
yes but assuming summoned food stays after being consumed like water from the create water spell wouldn't it last as long as people eat it before the summon ends?

Create water doesn't summon water. "Summon" has a specific game effect separate from the colloquial use of the word. A creature with spell like abilities that have permanent effects, maintains those permanent effects. It's not like being healed by a summon rips open again after the duration or anything.


also did you and ravens cry spontaneously switch signatures? o_O

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You guys actually did it! Oh man.
I was gonna participate, but I figured if get flak for forcing pony stuff I. Other people

[TuggyNE]

yes but assuming summoned food stays after being consumed like water from the create water spell wouldn't it last as long as people eat it before the summon ends?

Who knows?


also did you and ravens cry spontaneously switch signatures? o_O

Ehehehehe I'm so glad you asked! :smallbiggrin:


A creature with spell like abilities that have permanent effects, maintains those permanent effects. It's not like being healed by a summon rips open again after the duration or anything.

Well, instantaneous, but yes. Permanent spells would still expire.


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You guys actually did it! Oh man.
I was gonna participate, but I figured if get flak for forcing pony stuff I. Other people

Haha yeah. I think it'd've been fine, not like you're the only bronytar around!

[Ravens_cry]

Aye, actual sculpting with a chisel has been the idea. Or fabricate; either way, craft checks.

Yes, but this is before the statue is turned into a corpse. After that, it's a corpse of something, the something being whatever the original sculpture was. The idea of a corpse that isn't of something is almost zen.



Doesn't stone to flesh specify how it affects flesh golems?
You mean flesh to stone to flesh?
They took that out of Pathfinder.


Create water doesn't summon water. "Summon" has a specific game effect separate from the colloquial use of the word. A creature with spell like abilities that have permanent effects, maintains those permanent effects. It's not like being healed by a summon rips open again after the duration or anything.
Permanent or instantaneous? Because a healing spell is instantaneous, as is the water of create water. Permanent as a game term is a whole other question. Create food and water does have a duration by the way, at least for the food.



Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You guys actually did it! Oh man.
I was gonna participate, but I figured if get flak for forcing pony stuff I. Other people
We were going to switch avatars, I am using the one they use, but TuggyNE objected to my pixie's nudity. Which is ironic given the avatar of mine he did up end up choosing. It's covered in an alot [sic] of scales but not much else.

[SowZ]

Since it turns a Stone Golem to a Flesh Golem, it should work.

[No brains]

Not by RAW (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/constructs/golem/golem-stone), as the construction says it starts with a block of hard stone, such as granite, of exceptional quality (5000 gp quality to be exact) and the final shape is chiselled from that. Personally, as a DM, if you did some alchemical voodoo on the people you fleshed to stone that cost, coincidentally, 5000 gp, I'd allow it, but that's me.

Time for some silly spit balling.

Now I'm not sure if this is backed up by any of the stories that are about her, but I had thought Medusa turned people into high-quality marble statues like those made (and then flamboyantly painted) by Greeks. So it is possible that the stone itself is of good enough quality, but of inadequate quantity. You can't make a large stone golem out of a medium statue even if it's the best damn rock available.

Now I can't find a good analogue for a marble statue. One of such lifelike quality would probably be considered priceless or one-of-a-kind if the art world of D&D isn't already used to this kind of con. Although, assuming they are near the same level of value because both could be found in the Louvre , an old masterwork painting is worth around 1400gp on page 55 of the DMG. Again, possibly quality stone by weight but still too small.

Now, maybe if one could turn a stone giant with flesh to stone, I could imagine that would be an appropriate base for a stone golem without modification. The creatures have the same size and HD after all. But unless you can find a large 14HD creature with 'stone' already in its name, you might have to do that meat-grinding and then petrifying method I mentioned earlier. This is probably too vulnerable to exploit by players, but it's far more entertainingly imaginative that absolutely everything else in 3.5 that's broken.

[SiuiS]

Well, instantaneous, but yes. Permanent spells would still expire.


That's why I said permanent effect, not duration :smalltongue: