Petrification, Cloning, Aging, and where the hell is my soul?

[sir_argo]

Joe Wizard makes a clone. If he dies, his soul will go back to the clone. But what if Joe Wizard gets petrified? We know that a Greater Restoration can un-petrify Joe, so I assume his soul is still in the petrified body. This raises a couple of questions about petrified Joe.

Does he stop aging? If he gets petrified in a deep, dark corner of the underdark and 2,000 years passes until someone comes across him and casts Greater Restoration, is he still just 33 years old, or does he instantly die of old age when transformed back into flesh?

If you break pieces of Joe off of the petrified body, does he take HP damage? Would he ever die? I would readily assume that if I break off an arm, he wouldn't die. But what if I break him in half at his midsection? What if I smashed him into gravel?

Where is the soul? If breaking off pieces of Joe doesn't cause HP damage or kill him, is the soul in the head? If I break off the head, does the soul stay there? Where is the soul if I break Joe up into gravel?


In the end, I'm trying to determine if/when Joe's soul will transfer into the waiting clone.

[Sigreid]

My ruling is Petrified Joe's soul is trapped in the petrified body and cannot go to the clone. The soul will be released if the statue he has become is smashed to the point where he cannot be restored to life. Petrified Joe will not age while he is stone.

I could see some more fearful evil dudes petrifying themselves when they feel their death approaching to avoid their just reward for a life ill lived.

[Hrugner]

My reasoning:
I think it's best to say that he is dead as soon as he has taken damage that would result in him being dead at the moment of his unpetrification. Since even decapitation would leave the subject alive for a few moments, you would need to seriously disrupt the brain to erase the person's self at the moment of their restoration. So, while the brain isn't necessarily the home of the soul, it is the target we need for immediate death. Since an argument could be made that a person's sense of self isn't necessary for life, it could also make sense to destroy their heart as well.

Conclusion
All this in mind, I would rule that the brain needs to take 1 point of damage per hit die of the creature to result in a dead statue. So you could decapitate the statue of your enemy and keep the bust on your mantle for eternity.

[Regitnui]

I know of a case (3.5) where a dragon had herself petrified so as to remain young and strong. Admittedly, the resulting statue was cared for, so it didn't sustain any damage.

I'd say that petrified becomes dead after serious damage is sustained, to the point where the flesh body could no longer sustain life or the statue could be considered destroyed.

[Solunaris]

Well, let us just take a look at RAW for this one yeah? First we'll examine the "Petrified" Condition in the Player's Handbook.



A petrified creature is transformed, along with any non-magical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone). Its weight increases by a factor of ten, and it ceases aging.
The creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
The creature has resistance to all damage.
The creature is immune to poison and disease, although a poison or disease already in its system is suspended, not neutralized.


The first line about the condition answers your first question rather nicely; Joe the Wizard stops aging until he is de-petrified or dies. As for the bit about breaking pieces off, this is an "Ask your DM" moment. The condition makes no note of this, and in fact the way it reads Joe should probably still be treated as a creature even when Petrified. He would still take HP damage as normal but with resistance. I imagine that breaking off his head or snapping him in twain would require enough damage to kill Joe if he weren't Petrified. As for breaking off a limb, that is up to the DM entirely.

Were I the DM and this were a player character I'd not allow limbs to be taken off unless the character were dead, at which point I would treat it like a corpse (statue) and allow it to be damaged the same as stone. Of course, I might narrate that when enough damage is done to kill the Petrified creature that might take the form of the statue's head being broken off or it crumbling to gravel.

tl;dr You still take HP damage when petrified and still follow the same rules for death.

[Slayn82]

Petrification is the most secure and accessible way of getting rid from your enemies. A Greater Restoration may seem trivial, but it's on the same level of Revive Dead.

Meanwhile, his soul is stuck on his petrified body, so no resurrection, no warning allies the target is dead, and and it's a lot easier to magically hide an object than a creature. And you can make use of him in the future: arrange an overwhelming force later to subjugate him, and then put a Gaeas on the sap.

[MrStabby]

Without books at the moment but my guess is I would rule:

Petrified "kills" and puts the soul in the clone. Reverting the statue to flesh after that point produces a fresh corpse rather than a living person.

[Beelzebubba]

If the person could be broken to bits and their soul is trapped until they're reassembled, that seems pretty horrifying. I'd call that option the way I'd go in Lamentations of the Flame Princess or even some old-school AD&D games.

The less horrible fate, meaning if their petrified body is broken enough, they just die and their soul goes to their final reward, is the way to go nowadays in 5E. It fits better with the idea that 'petrified' is not them literally turning into stone in some permanent process, but something else that means their flesh is stone-like but still lives and (looking at the Cockatrice) can wear off given time.

[Dr. Cliché]

Does he stop aging? If he gets petrified in a deep, dark corner of the underdark and 2,000 years passes until someone comes across him and casts Greater Restoration, is he still just 33 years old, or does he instantly die of old age when transformed back into flesh?

As per the spell, e stops aging.



If you break pieces of Joe off of the petrified body, does he take HP damage? Would he ever die? I would readily assume that if I break off an arm, he wouldn't die. But what if I break him in half at his midsection? What if I smashed him into gravel?

Where is the soul? If breaking off pieces of Joe doesn't cause HP damage or kill him, is the soul in the head? If I break off the head, does the soul stay there? Where is the soul if I break Joe up into gravel?

See, this is where things get a bit weird. Because the rules want the person to be a statue, and yet still treated like a person (so you couldn't actually break off and can only inflict hp damage, whatever the hell that is).

However, if I was the DM, I would give the players free reign to break off the the statue's limbs (assuming they had some means of damaging it) or just smash it to gravel.

In terms of how I'd rule that (again, this is diverging a bit from the rules), I'd probably say that lost limbs would inflict hp damage to him if and when he was revived. Any damage to the statue that would prove instantly fatal (extreme damage to the chest or head, for example) would separate the soul from the statue and render it inert.

Alternatively, you could say that the person is only dead when they were actually revived - until then their soul remains locked into the statue or its component pieces if smashed (although, in that case, I'd probably say that reversing the spell on one piece would affect all the other pieces as well).

A further possibility would be to offer the character the chance to transfer to their soul in the instant of petrification. Not RAW, but something I'd definitely consider.

[sir_argo]

although, in that case, I'd probably say that reversing the spell on one piece would affect all the other pieces as well

I think this is how reversing it would work as well. Cast Greater Restoration on any single piece and all the other pieces turn back to flesh as well.

Of course, that will be quite a shock to Sara, who paved her walkway with gravel without realizing who it was...

[Vogonjeltz]

The first line about the condition answers your first question rather nicely; Joe the Wizard stops aging until he is de-petrified or dies. As for the bit about breaking pieces off, this is an "Ask your DM" moment. The condition makes no note of this, and in fact the way it reads Joe should probably still be treated as a creature even when Petrified. He would still take HP damage as normal but with resistance. I imagine that breaking off his head or snapping him in twain would require enough damage to kill Joe if he weren't Petrified. As for breaking off a limb, that is up to the DM entirely.

The answer is in the spell text of Flesh to Stone.

"If the creature is physically broken while petrified it suffers from similar deformities if it reverts to its original state." (PHB 243)

Similar text is present in the Basilisk's description (MM 24).

Although they didn't repeat that information for the Cockatrice, Gorgon, or Medusa, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be functionally identical.


See, this is where things get a bit weird. Because the rules want the person to be a statue, and yet still treated like a person (so you couldn't actually break off and can only inflict hp damage, whatever the hell that is).

No, the rules allow for the statue to be broken.

The real question is: Can the subject die even if their statue is subject to "lethal" HP damage. As nothing in the spell, creature effect, or condition text changes removes their capacity to die, I'd say the answer is yes. However, destroying part of a statue wouldn't require all HP loss, so, not a problem.

On the bright side, Mending should work (perhaps requiring many castings because of its limitations) to repair even a statue that has been ground to dust, if one were so inclined.


Joe Wizard makes a clone. If he dies, his soul will go back to the clone. But what if Joe Wizard gets petrified? We know that a Greater Restoration can un-petrify Joe, so I assume his soul is still in the petrified body. This raises a couple of questions about petrified Joe.

Does he stop aging? If he gets petrified in a deep, dark corner of the underdark and 2,000 years passes until someone comes across him and casts Greater Restoration, is he still just 33 years old, or does he instantly die of old age when transformed back into flesh?

If you break pieces of Joe off of the petrified body, does he take HP damage? Would he ever die? I would readily assume that if I break off an arm, he wouldn't die. But what if I break him in half at his midsection? What if I smashed him into gravel?

Where is the soul? If breaking off pieces of Joe doesn't cause HP damage or kill him, is the soul in the head? If I break off the head, does the soul stay there? Where is the soul if I break Joe up into gravel?


In the end, I'm trying to determine if/when Joe's soul will transfer into the waiting clone.

Summary:

Joe is not dead. Joe will not age and can not die unless all his hit points are lost/some other effect kills him.

Removal of limbs/decapitation are not lethal in this situation, as Joe is currently an object.

Up side: Joe can survive indefinitely in this state until someone graces him with a greater restoration.

Down side: Joe can't be restored to life using other spells as he isn't actually dead.

[Dr. Cliché]

No, the rules allow for the statue to be broken.

No, the rules tell you what happens *if* the statue is broken.

The problem is that (in terms of RAW) there isn't actually a way to break it in the first place. Bear in mind that it is still a character and there exist no rules for removing limbs from a character (even if they've been turned to stone).


However, destroying part of a statue wouldn't require all HP loss, so, not a problem.


I'm confused as to how you could destroy part of a character and not incur hp loss. :smallconfused:

Not to mention that, as above, there isn't a way within the rules to break the statue in the first place.

(Unless you count Disintegrate, which would do rather more than merely break the statue. :smallwink:)



On the bright side, Mending should work (perhaps requiring many castings because of its limitations) to repair even a statue that has been ground to dust, if one were so inclined.


Mending would indeed appear to work. Although, especially with a 1-minute cast time, I really wouldn't want to be the mage sent to restore a statue that had been broken into dust. :smalltongue:

[Vogonjeltz]

No, the rules tell you what happens *if* the statue is broken.

The problem is that (in terms of RAW) there isn't actually a way to break it in the first place. Bear in mind that it is still a character and there exist no rules for removing limbs from a character (even if they've been turned to stone).



I'm confused as to how you could destroy part of a character and not incur hp loss. :smallconfused:

Not to mention that, as above, there isn't a way within the rules to break the statue in the first place.

(Unless you count Disintegrate, which would do rather more than merely break the statue. :smallwink:)



Mending would indeed appear to work. Although, especially with a 1-minute cast time, I really wouldn't want to be the mage sent to restore a statue that had been broken into dust. :smalltongue:

In what universe is telling someone what happens if the statue is broken not implicitly stating that the statue "can" be broken?

The character is now an object, per the spell, so they would be breakable as the object rules suggest.

[Dr. Cliché]

In what universe is telling someone what happens if the statue is broken not implicitly stating that the statue "can" be broken?

I didn't say that it couldn't be broken. I said that the rules don't actually give you any method by which to break it.

The DM can of course house-rule this, but then if he does that there's nothing stopping house-ruling the consequences of breaking the statue as well.


The character is now an object, per the spell, so they would be breakable as the object rules suggest.

Sorry but that is completely fallacious. It does not say - either in the spell or in the Petrified condition - that the character becomes an object. Nor even that they are treated as such. They are still treated as a character, with some modifications as per the Petrified condition. Ergo you cannot apply the object rules to them any more that you could apply them to a non-petrified character. (DM fiat and/or house rules notwithstanding.)

[xanderh]

I didn't say that it couldn't be broken. I said that the rules don't actually give you any method by which to break it.

The DM can of course house-rule this, but then if he does that there's nothing stopping house-ruling the consequences of breaking the statue as well.



Sorry but that is completely fallacious. It does not say - either in the spell or in the Petrified condition - that the character becomes an object. Nor even that they are treated as such. They are still treated as a character, with some modifications as per the Petrified condition. Ergo you cannot apply the object rules to them any more that you could apply them to a non-petrified character. (DM fiat and/or house rules notwithstanding.)

The PHB does provide you with a method to destroy the statue. It's in the first chapter of the book, before even character creation. It's the rules on how to play the game.
The DM describes the situation (there's a petrified person in front of you). You describe your actions (I swing my hammer at the arm of the statue!). The DM describes the outcome of your actions (either it just happens, or he will call for a roll of some kind. Probably either an attack roll, or some kind of strength based ability check).

This is not a houserule, as it is how the game works in the first place. What I described above is the most general rule of the game. If no other rule covers something, that is the correct way to resolve the action.

[Dr. Cliché]

The PHB does provide you with a method to destroy the statue. It's in the first chapter of the book, before even character creation. It's the rules on how to play the game.
The DM describes the situation (there's a petrified person in front of you). You describe your actions (I swing my hammer at the arm of the statue!). The DM describes the outcome of your actions (either it just happens, or he will call for a roll of some kind. Probably either an attack roll, or some kind of strength based ability check).

So, having characters chop each others arms off isn't DM fiat either?

[xanderh]

So, having characters chop each others arms off isn't DM fiat either?

There's specific rules for combat, and specific beats general.

[Dr. Cliché]

There's specific rules for combat, and specific beats general.

So, specific beats general . . . except when you arbitrarily decide that it doesn't. :smallconfused:

The rules for attacking petrified characters are no different than the rules for attacking non-petrified characters, save that attacks against petrified characters have advantage.

[xanderh]

So, specific beats general . . . except when you arbitrarily decide that it doesn't. :smallconfused:

The rules for attacking petrified characters are no different than the rules for attacking non-petrified characters, save that attacks against petrified characters have advantage.

Apparently I need to spell this out...
The combat rules are for resolving armed conflict between creatures fighting each other. These rules only apply to armed conflict. If one side isn't fighting back, and never has the option to, it's not appropriate to use the combat rules.

For example, if you're an assassin who has snuck into the bedroom of a sleeping person, and you want to slit their throat, what is the appropriate way to resolve it? It's not an armed conflict, since one side isn't fighting. Is the outcome of this in any doubt? Well, maybe the sleeping person wakes up because the assassin made some noise, but that's resolved with a stealth vs perception check.

In the case of a petrified person being smashed with a hammer, there's no armed conflict. The petrified person has no means with which to resist being smashed. He can't move out of the way, and can't attempt to parry or block, so it's not appropriate to use the combat rules.

The combat chapter states the following:
This chapter provides the rules you need for your characters and monsters to engage in combat, whether it is a brief skirmish or an extended conflict in a dungeon or on a field of battle.
The dictionary definition of combat is "fighting between armed forces".

There's nothing in the PHB or the definition of the words used to suggest that the combat rules are appropriate for when you're trying to break a statue.
If you're doing it while in a fight, however, you do need to follow the rules for combat. This does mean that you cannot break off limbs, but only while you're in combat.

[Dr. Cliché]

The combat rules are for resolving armed conflict between creatures fighting each other.These rules only apply to armed conflict. If one side isn't fighting back, and never has the option to, it's not appropriate to use the combat rules.

Citation needed.

Indeed, given that there are specific rules for dealing with combat against creatures that are stunned, paralysed, restrained etc. (i.e. completely incapable of fighting back), your argument is clearly wrong.



For example, if you're an assassin who has snuck into the bedroom of a sleeping person, and you want to slit their throat, what is the appropriate way to resolve it? It's not an armed conflict, since one side isn't fighting. Is the outcome of this in any doubt? Well, maybe the sleeping person wakes up because the assassin made some noise, but that's resolved with a stealth vs perception check.

You use the rules for attacking an unconscious person (the assassin would have advantage on his attacks and melee attacks would automatically crit.). Anything else is DM fiat.



In the case of a petrified person being smashed with a hammer, there's no armed conflict.

There's also no armed combat when you attack someone who is stunned, paralysed and/or restrained. Are you saying that you can freely chop their arms off? Or just smash their skulls with no roll required?


The petrified person has no means with which to resist being smashed.

A stunned/paralysed/restrained person has no means to resist having their arm chopped off.


He can't move out of the way, and can't attempt to parry or block, so it's not appropriate to use the combat rules.

The stunned/paralysed/restrained individual can't move out of the way, and can't attempt to parry or block, so it's not appropriate to use the combat rules.



The combat chapter states the following:
This chapter provides the rules you need for your characters and monsters to engage in combat, whether it is a brief skirmish or an extended conflict in a dungeon or on a field of battle.
The dictionary definition of combat is "fighting between armed forces".

You do understand that that piece of introductory text isn't itself part of the rules, right?

Also, you seem to be cherry-picking your definitions.



There's nothing in the PHB or the definition of the words used to suggest that the combat rules are appropriate for when you're trying to break a statue.

But you're not trying to break a statue. You're trying to break a person. Again, you have not demonstrated why a Petrified person can be freely broken, and yet you cannot do the same to a person who is stunned, paralysed or restrained.

Put simply, your definition of when to use the combat rules has no basis in the actual rules, nor in common sense. it is entirely arbitrary and seems to be based on a preconcieved notion that Petrified people should be readily smashable (even though the rules still treat them as characters and specifically state what changes with regard to combat interactions), but that people equally unable to defend themselves should have some immunity from such.

[xanderh]

Citation needed.

Indeed, given that there are specific rules for dealing with combat against creatures that are stunned, paralysed, restrained etc. (i.e. completely incapable of fighting back), your argument is clearly wrong.



You use the rules for attacking an unconscious person (the assassin would have advantage on his attacks and melee attacks would automatically crit.). Anything else is DM fiat.



There's also no armed combat when you attack someone who is stunned, paralysed and/or restrained. Are you saying that you can freely chop their arms off? Or just smash their skulls with no roll required?



A stunned/paralysed/restrained person has no means to resist having their arm chopped off.



The stunned/paralysed/restrained individual can't move out of the way, and can't attempt to parry or block, so it's not appropriate to use the combat rules.



You do understand that that piece of introductory text isn't itself part of the rules, right?

Also, you seem to be cherry-picking your definitions.



But you're not trying to break a statue. You're trying to break a person. Again, you have not demonstrated why a Petrified person can be freely broken, and yet you cannot do the same to a person who is stunned, paralysed or restrained.

Put simply, your definition of when to use the combat rules has no basis in the actual rules, nor in common sense. it is entirely arbitrary and seems to be based on a preconcieved notion that Petrified people should be readily smashable (even though the rules still treat them as characters and specifically state what changes with regard to combat interactions), but that people equally unable to defend themselves should have some immunity from such.

Please point me to where it says that part of the text isn't part of the rules.

[PanosIs]

I would say that it works like undead. Your soul is not in the statue (the undead), yet it is bound to it and cannot return to a body unless the statue is destroyed. If the condition is removed the soul reenters the body and things work normally. If the body is damaged and the spell that cured the condition (usually Greater Restoration) does not repair the body the subject might instantly die and pass on.

[Dr. Cliché]

Please point me to where it says that part of the text isn't part of the rules.

Please point me to a rule in that piece of text that the DM or players can follow in-game.

Hell, even if we accept that it's part of the rules, it doesn't make your argument any less contradictory.

If you are going to argue that combat overrides 'DM decides' because of specific vs general, you can't then turn around and say that Petrification doesn't count for this - even though it has specific rules for dealing with it.

[xanderh]

Please point me to a rule in that piece of text that the DM or players can follow in-game.

Hell, even if we accept that it's part of the rules, it doesn't make your argument any less contradictory.

If you are going to argue that combat overrides 'DM decides' because of specific vs general, you can't then turn around and say that Petrification doesn't count for this - even though it has specific rules for dealing with it.

Either you're not actually reading what I'm writing, or I can't explain what I'm trying to get across in a manner that you can understand. I'll just bow out of this now, save us both the headache.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Clearly players saying "we break pieces off this petrified guy" should be handled with the same rules and customs you usually employ when they say "we saw limbs off this prisoner guy".

[nickl_2000]

This thread still reminds me of a story a fellow player mentioned from Wizards magazine in the days of AD&D or OD&D.

If you take a Half-Orc and cast Flesh to Stone on him
Then Cast Stone to Mud on the statue
Then use proficiency in art to shape the mud into a halfling shape
Then can Greater Restoration on the halfling shape

Does the Half-Orc come back as a Half-Orc, a Halfling, or a bloody pile of goo?



The answer, of course, is to throw a die at the Player playing the caster involved in this and then make a house rule for whatever would be the most funny to do to a PC.

[Dr. Cliché]

Clearly players saying "we break pieces off this petrified guy" should be handled with the same rules and customs you usually employ when they say "we saw limbs off this prisoner guy".

Pretty much. I mean, customs may vary, but I'd definitely argue that the same sort of rules should apply.

That said, it does bring up an interesting point. Let's say that we have a normal statue of a person, and next to it is a 'statue' that's actually a Petrified person.

Would there by any way to determine (either by sight or interaction) that one was an ordinary statue, whilst the other was actually a person?


This thread still reminds me of a story a fellow player mentioned from Wizards magazine in the days of AD&D or OD&D.

If you take a Half-Orc and cast Flesh to Stone on him
Then Cast Stone to Mud on the statue
Then use proficiency in art to shape the mud into a halfling shape
Then can Greater Restoration on the halfling shape

Does the Half-Orc come back as a Half-Orc, a Halfling, or a bloody pile of goo?

That's amazing. :smallbiggrin:

[Beelzebubba]

Would there by any way to determine (either by sight or interaction) that one was an ordinary statue, whilst the other was actually a person?

Detect Magic?

[Dr. Cliché]

Detect Magic?

Does being petrified count as 'bearing magic'?

If not, then this would only work if the character had magical gear on their person, prior to being petrified.

[Vogonjeltz]

Sorry but that is completely fallacious. It does not say - either in the spell or in the Petrified condition - that the character becomes an object.

Sorry, typo, it does say it in the condition:

"A petrified creature is transformed, along with any nonmagical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone)."

In this game, something stone is an object.

Also, there are rules for breaking objects in the DMG. Refer to those.

[RickAllison]

Sorry, typo, it does say it in the condition:

"A petrified creature is transformed, along with any nonmagical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone)."

In this game, something stone is an object.

Also, there are rules for breaking objects in the DMG. Refer to those.

Something being stone does NOT mean it is an object. Proof:

Gray Ooze: "stone turned to liquid by chaos"
Medusa: Refers to petrified targets as creatures, not objects.
Stone Golems: Literally creatures made out of stone.

So yeah. Creatures can be made of stone and still be creatures. Becoming petrified and becoming an object would be a severe exception to the rule.

[BurgerBeast]

I've been thinking about this thread quite a bit. I don't know how I would rule. I can't reconcile the idea of the breaking of the statue translating in any way to a dead body unless the character is restored. I think there would have to be some kind of point-of-no return beyond which the soul is not recoverable... so as the OP rightly asks... what happens?

I think I would rule that a bodiless soul is left on the material plane. At that point I think it depends on the world/setting.

Does the soul wander as a ghost? Can you create some new type of undead monster that is specifically created when a petrified creature is destroyed? Maybe this could become the inspiration for an adventure or plot.

[Beelzebubba]

Does being petrified count as 'bearing magic'?

If not, then this would only work if the character had magical gear on their person, prior to being petrified.

For the Gorgon, the effect is undone by a spell, so I'd rule in that case, yes. It's an ongoing magic effect.

For a Cockatrice, the effect wears off in 24 hours, but it doesn't say if that effect can be dispelled. A bit more ambiguous. It basically operates like a long-duration magical effect, so I'd also rule yes.

I'd also say it shows up as Transmutation school if detected for.

This is my thinking right now. Anyone have a reason why they'd rule differently?

[nickl_2000]

I've been thinking about this thread quite a bit. I don't know how I would rule. I can't reconcile the idea of the breaking of the statue translating in any way to a dead body unless the character is restored. I think there would have to be some kind of point-of-no return beyond which the soul is not recoverable... so as the OP rightly asks... what happens?

I think I would rule that a bodiless soul is left on the material plane. At that point I think it depends on the world/setting.

Does the soul wander as a ghost? Can you create some new type of undead monster that is specifically created when a petrified creature is destroyed? Maybe this could become the inspiration for an adventure or plot.

that would be a pretty cool plot point, but I would talk that over with the player first to make sure they are okay with it. I could see some players getting annoyed that the DM is controlling a perverted undead version of the character.

[BurgerBeast]

that would be a pretty cool plot point, but I would talk that over with the player first to make sure they are okay with it. I could see some players getting annoyed that the DM is controlling a perverted undead version of the character.

I didn't mean it in the context of inflicting it upon a player. I just meant it generally.

[edit: however, in the context of the OP, it could be cool (in the right conditions) to play out the experience of an "earth"bound soul trying to navigate the world (a la Patrick Swayze in Ghost) and find a way to reach and enter to clone.

[Dr. Cliché]

For the Gorgon, the effect is undone by a spell, so I'd rule in that case, yes. It's an ongoing magic effect.

To be fair, nonmagical poisons can also be undone by a spell. So can wounds. :smallwink:

[Demonslayer666]

Damaging the statue just does HP damage to the character, and HP damage doesn't remove limbs from characters, so removing limbs from a petrified character should be a special case (DM's ruling). A sword of sharpness can remove a limb, but the effect is up to the DM. A vorpal sword can remove the head which can kill a creature.

Death occurs as normal when you are petrified. Although it's hard to imagine rock stabilizing, it's already pretty stable.

As a DM, I would rule that you are a statue.

[Vogonjeltz]

Also, there are rules for breaking objects in the DMG. Refer to those.
Something being stone does NOT mean it is an object. Proof:

Gray Ooze: "stone turned to liquid by chaos"
Medusa: Refers to petrified targets as creatures, not objects.
Stone Golems: Literally creatures made out of stone.

So yeah. Creatures can be made of stone and still be creatures. Becoming petrified and becoming an object would be a severe exception to the rule.

Addressing each in turn:
By the object rules an animated something isn't an object, so that checks out with the Liquid Ooze.
Stone Golems are, similarly, constructs, not objects, and they are animated, also not in agreement with the object rules.

As for Medusa: "all who gaze upon the medusa are petrified, becoming stone monuments to its corruption." (MM 214)
And the ability of the medusa says the creature is petrified. When we look up the Petrified condition we get "A petrified creature is transformed, along with any nonmagical object it is wearing or carrying, into a solid inanimate substance (usually stone)." (PHB 291)

I'd say it's safe to call that statue an object. Now, given that Greater Restoration targets creatures, yes, I'd agree these are fairly specific circumstances, but they seem to carry through across the board.

I'd argue the character is now an object (a statue of stone) and capable of being broken just like any statue, but not deceased anymore than they would be if they were True Polymorphed into the same thing.

Actually, given that the Petrified condition specifies the character isn't aging, they can't possibly be dead.

[xanderh]

The DMG defines an object for the purposes of the game as "a discrete, inanimate item", and proceeds to list some examples (page 246). The condition specifies inanimate, and a statue is certainly a discrete item.
Following that, I'd say a petrified creature is an object.

[Dr. Cliché]

The DMG defines an object for the purposes of the game as "a discrete, inanimate item", and proceeds to list some examples (page 246). The condition specifies inanimate, and a statue is certainly a discrete item.
Following that, I'd say a petrified creature is an object.

By that logic, a paralysed person is also an object.

[xanderh]

By that logic, a paralysed person is also an object.

The paralysed condition doesn't specify that they're inanimate.

[Dr. Cliché]

The paralysed condition doesn't specify that they're inanimate.

And Petrified still refers to the creature as a creature, not an object. But we're happy enough to ignore that part.

[Beelzebubba]

To be fair, nonmagical poisons can also be undone by a spell. So can wounds. :smallwink:

Oh, you're so cheeky. :smalltongue:

[Sir cryosin]

My ruling is Petrified Joe's soul is trapped in the petrified body and cannot go to the clone. The soul will be released if the statue he has become is smashed to the point where he cannot be restored to life. Petrified Joe will not age while he is stone.

I could see some more fearful evil dudes petrifying themselves when they feel their death approaching to avoid their just reward for a life ill lived.

This gives me a great Idea. We're the BBEG will petrify him self when the PC's get pass all his defenses in his lair but before he turns himself into a statue he cast glyph of warding on the ground he standing. To were after a week or two it cast greater restoration on him as a statue. Hopefully the party is gone by then.

[sir_argo]

And just to throw fuel on the fire...

Can you cast telepathy on a petrified creature and communicate with it?

[Kane0]

Petrified Joe is still Joe, so he can't go to his clone until he runs out of HP (he's a statue, so resistant to most damage and cannot be healed except for 'fix' type spells)
While petrified Joe doesn't age. Breaking off pieces of him causes the appropriate amount of damage, decapitating him or reducing him to rubble would definitely count as more than enough to kill him. Upon death the stone becomes inert and his soul goes to his clone.


And just to throw fuel on the fire...

Can you cast telepathy on a petrified creature and communicate with it?
Hahahahaha sure, but you won't get much out of him. He is stoned after all.

[furby076]

This thread still reminds me of a story a fellow player mentioned from Wizards magazine in the days of AD&D or OD&D.

If you take a Half-Orc and cast Flesh to Stone on him
Then Cast Stone to Mud on the statue
Then use proficiency in art to shape the mud into a halfling shape
Then can Greater Restoration on the halfling shape

Does the Half-Orc come back as a Half-Orc, a Halfling, or a bloody pile of goo?



The answer, of course, is to throw a die at the Player playing the caster involved in this and then make a house rule for whatever would be the most funny to do to a PC.

I want to roll up a cleric for the campaign i am in, do this, and then retire my character after the dm has an aneurysm