Break Enchantment vs. Disintegrate.

[Aquillion]

Break Enchantment says:


This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect.

Disintegrate is an instantaneous transmutation spell.

Can you Break Enchantment a Disintegrate, and if so, what happens? If someone was struck by Disintegrate but not killed, does Break Enchantment undo the damage, effectively healing them? Can it restore someone who was killed and turned to dust?

[Thurbane]

Well, the first issue I can see is this:


If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

Disintegrate is a Sor/Wiz 6 spell.

The only class that gets it lower than this is Duskblade, AFAIK.

Assuming you can get it to apply, I would probably rule that it does not undo damage if the creature wasn't slain; and if the creature was slain, its body is reconstituted, but it is still dead. Not sure if I can back that up with a citation, but that's my first instinct.

[Zanos]

You can't dispel effects with a duration of instantaneous.
Break Enchantment can explicitly reverse instantaneous effects. It's quoted in the OP.

If there were a 5th level disintegrate effect I would say it would definitely reconstitute the body from the ashes. I believe it would undo the damage if the creature was still alive, but could not resurrect a dead creature. Death is a consequence of running out of hit points, not of the disintegrate spell itself.

Are there other damaging transmutation spells? This certainly seems odd, but break enchantment was always an odd spell, especially since the spell it claims to work on(flesh to stone) is actually outside its spell level limit.

[Teth]

Break Enchantment can explicitly reverse instantaneous effects. It's quoted in the OP.

Hadn't seen that. The interesting bit here is that it implies Break Enchantment provides a counter-effect rather than a dispel effect, like happens with Flesh to Stone / Stone to Flesh, which also scans with it talking about freeing victims and reversing effects rather than ending spells or whatever once you look for it. There's also the fact that it says to make a caster level check, whereas Dispel Magic says dispel check, so things like the Inquisition domain's bonus to dispel checks wouldn't apply.

I'd complain about it being abjuration at that point, but I guess it's the reasonable option when it provides a counter to multiple schools and thus can't easily fit any of them.


This certainly seems odd, but break enchantment was always an odd spell, especially since the spell it claims to work on(flesh to stone) is actually outside its spell level limit.

The reference to Flesh to Stone shows in PHB 3.5 but not the SRD, so I'd assume it was an uncaught error where someone thought up an illustrative example then missed the numbers.

[Psyren]

Well, the first issue I can see is this:



Disintegrate is a Sor/Wiz 6 spell.

The only class that gets it lower than this is Duskblade, AFAIK.

Assuming you can get it to apply, I would probably rule that it does not undo damage if the creature wasn't slain; and if the creature was slain, its body is reconstituted, but it is still dead. Not sure if I can back that up with a citation, but that's my first instinct.

Yep, all of this.

The transmutation effect of "corpse to dust" only occurs after there's a corpse. So assuming there was a disintegrate that was 5th level or lower, this could reconstitute the body from the dust, but it would still be a dead body.

[loky1109]

Caster with Disintegration Finesse feat

can select to disintegrate only portions of the target. Against living targets, it still does the normal amount of damage, but any parts of the target it wishes to spare remain unaffected by the spell. The creature could, for example, disintegrate only a target's skeleton, leaving its skull untouched. It also can voluntarily reduce the amount of damage dealt.

If your campaign uses the Damage to Specific Areas variant rule on page 27 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, a creature with this feat can disintegrate a single part of a target's body, such as its hand, arm, head, eyes, ears, feet, legs, and so on, as long as the target is not killed outright by the damage caused by the spell.
so Break Enchantment can be useful in this case.

[Crake]

Can we talk about the fact that break enchantment specifically targets creatures, and that corpses are not creatures? Not only that, even if it did work on corpses, what would you target after a disintegrate?! It doesn't leave behind a pile of ashes, it leaves behind "a trace of fine dust". That would quickly get lost at the slightest breeze, im not sure you'd be able to target it in the first place.

[Batcathat]

Can we talk about the fact that break enchantment specifically targets creatures, and that corpses are not creatures? Not only that, even if it did work on corpses, what would you target after a disintegrate?! It doesn't leave behind a pile of ashes, it leaves behind "a trace of fine dust". That would quickly get lost at the slightest breeze, im not sure you'd be able to target it in the first place.

A funny (but cruel) interpretation might be to have it transform the first speck of dust it hits into whatever piece of the victim's body it used to be. :smallamused:

[Thurbane]

Can we talk about the fact that break enchantment specifically targets creatures, and that corpses are not creatures? Not only that, even if it did work on corpses, what would you target after a disintegrate?! It doesn't leave behind a pile of ashes, it leaves behind "a trace of fine dust". That would quickly get lost at the slightest breeze, im not sure you'd be able to target it in the first place.

Hmm, good point about it targeting creatures. Whether a corpse is an object or creature for targeting is pretty hotly debated, but I don't think you could extend that argument to traces of dust, which is clearly not a creature.

I'd still probably (house)rule that it reconstitutes the body, just because having your body disintegrated is a major pain unless Resurrection or similar is available.

All of which is largely academic, unless the Disintegrate effect is a 5th level spell or lower. I'm assuming most creatures with Disintegrate emulate the 6th level Sor/Wiz version.

[Lukalaly]

All of which is largely academic, unless the Disintegrate effect is a 5th level spell or lower. I'm assuming most creatures with Disintegrate emulate the 6th level Sor/Wiz version.

Ah, but what about the hordes of level 17+ duskblades that you'll be fighting? Make room "big six", it's time to add "protection from duskblade's 5th level disintegrate" to the list of mandatory magic items. Nah, I can't even pretend that's relevant, seeing as at that point you've probably got relatively easy access to both resurrection and true resurrection, and wish/miracle if that's not enough for you. Gish base classes really do fall off later, huh. Even urban druid gets disintegrate at level 13, and I didn't even know they got disintegrate.

[Crake]

All of which is largely academic, unless the Disintegrate effect is a 5th level spell or lower. I'm assuming most creatures with Disintegrate emulate the 6th level Sor/Wiz version.

I mean, I'm personally of the opinion that "If the spell cannot be dispelled by dispel magic it only works on spells of 5th level or below" specifically refers to non instantaneous spells that specify "this spell cannot be dispelled by dispel magic", since the cited example of break enchantment is itself flesh to stone, which is a 6th level instantaneous spell.

[Lukalaly]

I mean, I'm personally of the opinion that "If the spell cannot be dispelled by dispel magic it only works on spells of 5th level or below" specifically refers to non instantaneous spells that specify "this spell cannot be dispelled by dispel magic", since the cited example of break enchantment is itself flesh to stone, which is a 6th level instantaneous spell.

That makes sense, though I also think it's a bit easier to just say "stone to flesh is an exception to the rule of 5th level or lower" than "only spells that aren't instantaneous are subject to the 5th level or lower rule" since that feels a bit reversed personally. Wouldn't it be harder to break instantaneous spells, since the magic is gone after the spell is cast? Someone hit by stone to flesh isn't magic stone, they're just regular stone (whatever "regular stone" means), as opposed to someone hit by blindness, where permanent magic is clouding their vision. One just requires you to stop the magic that's already going, while the other requires you to actively reverse a magical effect that's already been completed.

Though that being said, I think either reading is 100% reasonable, that's just my 2 cents. Not trying to say you're wrong or anything.

[Darg]

This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.
If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower. For instance, bestow curse cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, but break enchantment can dispel it.


I mean, I'm personally of the opinion that "If the spell cannot be dispelled by dispel magic it only works on spells of 5th level or below" specifically refers to non instantaneous spells that specify "this spell cannot be dispelled by dispel magic", since the cited example of break enchantment is itself flesh to stone, which is a 6th level instantaneous spell.

I have to agree with Crake. The cited example is bestow curse, which is a permanent effect with an explicit exception to being dispelled. You really need the source material to get a better picture for a lot of things. The SRD isn't the best source without the examples.

[Kuulvheysoon]

That makes sense, though I also think it's a bit easier to just say "stone to flesh is an exception to the rule of 5th level or lower" than "only spells that aren't instantaneous are subject to the 5th level or lower rule" since that feels a bit reversed personally. Wouldn't it be harder to break instantaneous spells, since the magic is gone after the spell is cast? Someone hit by stone to flesh isn't magic stone, they're just regular stone (whatever "regular stone" means), as opposed to someone hit by blindness, where permanent magic is clouding their vision. One just requires you to stop the magic that's already going, while the other requires you to actively reverse a magical effect that's already been completed.

Though that being said, I think either reading is 100% reasonable, that's just my 2 cents. Not trying to say you're wrong or anything.

I think that, much to my shock, they were trying to cover their bases for future supplements. Just because there was only one or two Instantaneous transmutations in the PHB doesn't mean that they wouldn't introduce more later, and they purposefully left it open.

(I'm not being sarcastic. Note the lack of blue text. I'm honestly giving WotC the benefit of the doubt here).

[Lukalaly]

I think that, much to my shock, they were trying to cover their bases for future supplements. Just because there was only one or two Instantaneous transmutations in the PHB doesn't mean that they wouldn't introduce more later, and they purposefully left it open.

(I'm not being sarcastic. Note the lack of blue text. I'm honestly giving WotC the benefit of the doubt here).

That...could certainly be the case. As I said, it's a perfectly reasonable reading, I just don't think I can get behind it. Something in my lizard brain just says it isn't so, I guess. Maybe if that was a more common occurrence, but as is, idk.

[Aquillion]

I mean, I'm personally of the opinion that "If the spell cannot be dispelled by dispel magic it only works on spells of 5th level or below" specifically refers to non instantaneous spells that specify "this spell cannot be dispelled by dispel magic", since the cited example of break enchantment is itself flesh to stone, which is a 6th level instantaneous spell.
This is my reading as well. I always read that line as referring exclusively to spells that say "this spell cannot be dispelled by dispel magic" in their description, or words to that effect, not to instant spells that are outside of Dispel Magic's scope. If that is the intent, though, then it could certainly be better-worded.

[Crake]

That makes sense, though I also think it's a bit easier to just say "stone to flesh is an exception to the rule of 5th level or lower" than "only spells that aren't instantaneous are subject to the 5th level or lower rule" since that feels a bit reversed personally. Wouldn't it be harder to break instantaneous spells, since the magic is gone after the spell is cast? Someone hit by stone to flesh isn't magic stone, they're just regular stone (whatever "regular stone" means), as opposed to someone hit by blindness, where permanent magic is clouding their vision. One just requires you to stop the magic that's already going, while the other requires you to actively reverse a magical effect that's already been completed.

Though that being said, I think either reading is 100% reasonable, that's just my 2 cents. Not trying to say you're wrong or anything.

Well, the fact that it can reverse an instantaneous effect at all to me feels like it should be able to reverse any instantaneous effect, high or low level, for just that same reason. The magic is gone, so the instantaneous effect is just as easy to reverse as any other. Consider damage for a moment. Is damage from a high level spell harder to heal than damage from a lower level spell? Ignoring the fact that higher level spells do MORE damage obviously, each individual point of damage is just as heal-able as the last.

On the other hand, a continuous magical effect of higher level is keeping the effect in place, making a lower level spell have more trouble removing the effect.

So basically to me it works more like: Instantaneous effect, no magic keeping it in place to prevent the spell from working, can reverse whatever it wants within it's scope. Non-instantaneous effect, magic keeping it in place, spell is only capable of removing effects up to 5th level if they aren't removable by dispel magic, otherwise just basically functions like a slightly stronger dispel magic (+15 caster level cap instead of +10), while also having a smaller scope.

[Lukalaly]

Well, the fact that it can reverse an instantaneous effect at all to me feels like it should be able to reverse any instantaneous effect, high or low level, for just that same reason. The magic is gone, so the instantaneous effect is just as easy to reverse as any other. Consider damage for a moment. Is damage from a high level spell harder to heal than damage from a lower level spell? Ignoring the fact that higher level spells do MORE damage obviously, each individual point of damage is just as heal-able as the last.

On the other hand, a continuous magical effect of higher level is keeping the effect in place, making a lower level spell have more trouble removing the effect.

So basically to me it works more like: Instantaneous effect, no magic keeping it in place to prevent the spell from working, can reverse whatever it wants within it's scope. Non-instantaneous effect, magic keeping it in place, spell is only capable of removing effects up to 5th level if they aren't removable by dispel magic, otherwise just basically functions like a slightly stronger dispel magic (+15 caster level cap instead of +10), while also having a smaller scope.

Since when has 3.5 been above blatant trap options?

Huh. Yeah, you got me. That makes sense to me, in the weird way that Schrödinger's cat makes sense to me. Something in my gut wants to say it's wrong but I can't place my finger on what exactly. Which is how I feel about a lot of rules in this game, so I guess I'll just add it to the pile.

[Psyren]

Even if you agree that BE can reverse disintegration, there's still nothing in the spell about healing damage or restoring someone to life. So my reading is that after "reintegration", you'd end up with an intact dead body. Useful trick if you only have Raise Dead, but not enough purely on its own to get the character up and moving again.

[Lukalaly]

Even if you agree that BE can reverse disintegration, there's still nothing in the spell about healing damage or restoring someone to life. So my reading is that after "reintegration", you'd end up with an intact dead body. Useful trick if you only have Raise Dead, but not enough purely on its own to get the character up and moving again.

Useful for the two levels where you have disintegrate but not resurrection, assuming that enemy spellcasters are disintegrating you at that level, which I don't think is an unreasonable assumption. Also useful for if you want to cast speak with dead on someone that got disintegrated by accident. Similarly useful if you accidentally disintegrate something you might want as a undead minion. There's a lot of useful things you can do with corpses, less so with piles of ashes. Unless you wanna pull a James Randi and blow them into someone's eye. Love James Randi.

[Thurbane]

Bards can cast Break Enchantment as early as ECL 10, as can Trapsmiths. AFAIK, no one gets Resurrection earlier than ECL 13, so there is that.

[Crake]

I mean, dispel magic argument aside, the fine dust left behind from disintegrate is quite clearly not a creature, so I don't think there's any argument at all to be had in that regards.

[Thurbane]

I mean, dispel magic argument aside, the fine dust left behind from disintegrate is quite clearly not a creature, so I don't think there's any argument at all to be had in that regards.

That's technically correct. But resurrection gives kind-of a precedent for this:


(The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.)

Resurrection references Raise Dead, which has a target line of "Dead creature touched".

I wouldn't argue it as RAW, but a generous reading might treat it as RAI.

[Crake]

That's technically correct. But resurrection gives kind-of a precedent for this:



Resurrection references Raise Dead, which has a target line of "Dead creature touched".

I wouldn't argue it as RAW, but a generous reading might treat it as RAI.

Yeah, but "dead creature" and "creature" are not the same, that's where the major difference lies.

[Lukalaly]

I mean, dispel magic argument aside, the fine dust left behind from disintegrate is quite clearly not a creature, so I don't think there's any argument at all to be had in that regards.

Genuine question, what is the difference between a stone statue of a creature created from flesh to stone and a pile of ash from a disintegrated creature? One is definitely a bit more...put together, for sure, but neither are really creatures anymore, are they? Flesh to stone doesn't give you the petrified condition, but simply turns you into a statue. In fact, explicitly unlike a petrified creature, one you are un-stoned, any alterations to your form while made of stone becomes permanent. The creature is also explicitly not alive or dead, as the spell states, someone casting deathwatch on a flesh to stoned creature get the same result as any other statue.

If you still consider someone afflicted by flesh to stone to still be a creature, then you also run into some other strange things. Sure, they aren't considered dead from the flesh to stone, but could they become dead while still stone? If you cast finger of death on said creature, would they die? Would a deathwatch spell then register them as a dead statue? Can you cast haste on said statue? Are they not able to animated by animate object? If you broke off their arm, would you just need mending to reattach it, or would you need regeneration?

Or does the whole thing fall apart, and it's considered an object for spells that it would make sense to be considered an object for, but a creature for spells that it would make sense for a creature for? In which case, why even make the distinction between object and creature to begin with? Just use common sense!

Or, alternatively, flesh to stone is the exception, and there are no other times that break enchantment would be able to effect an object. Personally, I don't find this very compelling. I think it makes sense to say that objects that were formerly creatures, alive or dead, are viable targets for break enchantment. While I can't think of any other specific instances that this would be relevant off the top of my head, it wouldn't surprise me if there were more. In which case, flesh to stone would remain an exception from the rule, as opposed to being the rule.

Edit: I would like to clarify that I'm not saying this is the Objectively Correct™ reading of the text, simply the one that makes the most sense to me. Hopefully this is obvious, but I often worry that when I spend too long explaining my reasoning for something, I come off like I'm saying that other people are wrong, which I'm not.

[Crake]

Genuine question, what is the difference between a stone statue of a creature created from flesh to stone and a pile of ash from a disintegrated creature? One is definitely a bit more...put together, for sure, but neither are really creatures anymore, are they? Flesh to stone doesn't give you the petrified condition, but simply turns you into a statue. In fact, explicitly unlike a petrified creature, one you are un-stoned, any alterations to your form while made of stone becomes permanent. The creature is also explicitly not alive or dead, as the spell states, someone casting deathwatch on a flesh to stoned creature get the same result as any other statue.

If you still consider someone afflicted by flesh to stone to still be a creature, then you also run into some other strange things. Sure, they aren't considered dead from the flesh to stone, but could they become dead while still stone? If you cast finger of death on said creature, would they die? Would a deathwatch spell then register them as a dead statue? Can you cast haste on said statue? Are they not able to animated by animate object? If you broke off their arm, would you just need mending to reattach it, or would you need regeneration?

Or does the whole thing fall apart, and it's considered an object for spells that it would make sense to be considered an object for, but a creature for spells that it would make sense for a creature for? In which case, why even make the distinction between object and creature to begin with? Just use common sense!

Or, alternatively, flesh to stone is the exception, and there are no other times that break enchantment would be able to effect an object. Personally, I don't find this very compelling. I think it makes sense to say that objects that were formerly creatures, alive or dead, are viable targets for break enchantment. While I can't think of any other specific instances that this would be relevant off the top of my head, it wouldn't surprise me if there were more. In which case, flesh to stone would remain an exception from the rule, as opposed to being the rule.

Edit: I would like to clarify that I'm not saying this is the Objectively Correct™ reading of the text, simply the one that makes the most sense to me. Hopefully this is obvious, but I often worry that when I spend too long explaining my reasoning for something, I come off like I'm saying that other people are wrong, which I'm not.

The spell explains this:

"The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue."

So to begin with, the creature becomes mindless and inert, but it doesn't state it becomes an object or anything similar.

"The creature is not dead, but it does not seem to be alive either when viewed with spells such as deathwatch."

Note that it says it does not seem to be alive, that does not make it any less or more alive.

[Lukalaly]

The spell explains this:

"The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue."

So to begin with, the creature becomes mindless and inert, but it doesn't state it becomes an object or anything similar.

"The creature is not dead, but it does not seem to be alive either when viewed with spells such as deathwatch."

Note that it says it does not seem to be alive, that does not make it any less or more alive.

Yeah, I definitely agree that this makes it a bit shakier. But that's only the first part of the post. Like I said, considering the statue to be a creature makes for other oddities as well. Could you find out that some random statue was secretly a creature effected by flesh to stone because it wasn't able to be targeted by animate object? Would you be able to use polymorph on it? Enlarge person, if humanoid? Would reattaching a broken off stone arm require a simple mending or regeneration? Or is it only an object for those spells?

It also makes for some strange interactions if you use flesh to stone on an already mindless creature that has spell like or supernatural abilities, like the giant fire beetle. If it were somehow able to make an attack, which it obviously wouldn't since it's not subject to animate object as it's a creature still but not the point, would it be able to activate its smite? It's already mindless, and it doesn't need to move or speak to activate a supernatural ability, so I see no reason that it wouldn't be able to.

I don't think either application is particularly satisfying, but I think that flesh to stone statues being treated differently than regular statues in all those situations would be...weird. I feel like you would see more people doing the things I said above to regular statues just to make sure that they aren't actually living beings.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Yeah, I definitely agree that this makes it a bit shakier. But that's only the first part of the post. Like I said, considering the statue to be a creature makes for other oddities as well. Could you find out that some random statue was secretly a creature effected by flesh to stone because it wasn't able to be targeted by animate object? Would you be able to use polymorph on it? Enlarge person, if humanoid? Would reattaching a broken off stone arm require a simple mending or regeneration? Or is it only an object for those spells?

It also makes for some strange interactions if you use flesh to stone on an already mindless creature that has spell like or supernatural abilities, like the giant fire beetle. If it were somehow able to make an attack, which it obviously wouldn't since it's not subject to animate object as it's a creature still but not the point, would it be able to activate its smite? It's already mindless, and it doesn't need to move or speak to activate a supernatural ability, so I see no reason that it wouldn't be able to.

I don't think either application is particularly satisfying, but I think that flesh to stone statues being treated differently than regular statues in all those situations would be...weird. I feel like you would see more people doing the things I said above to regular statues just to make sure that they aren't actually living beings.

How hilarious would that be; you drop a statue of a giant fire beetle on someone and then it bursts into holy flame because it was actually a petrified celestial giant fire beetle and is still able to smite them?

[Crake]

Yeah, I definitely agree that this makes it a bit shakier. But that's only the first part of the post. Like I said, considering the statue to be a creature makes for other oddities as well. Could you find out that some random statue was secretly a creature effected by flesh to stone because it wasn't able to be targeted by animate object? Would you be able to use polymorph on it? Enlarge person, if humanoid? Would reattaching a broken off stone arm require a simple mending or regeneration? Or is it only an object for those spells?

I suppose you would be able to cast those spells? They wouldn't exactly have much effect though, since the target is mindless and inert.


It also makes for some strange interactions if you use flesh to stone on an already mindless creature that has spell like or supernatural abilities, like the giant fire beetle. If it were somehow able to make an attack, which it obviously wouldn't since it's not subject to animate object as it's a creature still but not the point, would it be able to activate its smite? It's already mindless, and it doesn't need to move or speak to activate a supernatural ability, so I see no reason that it wouldn't be able to.

This is where the second part of the condition comes in. Sure, it becomes mindless, but it also becomes inert. It loses the ability to perform actions, and thus cannot activate abilities. On a side note, a celestial giant fire beetle is not actually mindless, celestial creatures gain an intelligence score of 3 if they were mindless, or had an intelligence score below 3.


I don't think either application is particularly satisfying, but I think that flesh to stone statues being treated differently than regular statues in all those situations would be...weird. I feel like you would see more people doing the things I said above to regular statues just to make sure that they aren't actually living beings.

I mean, not everyone has the resources to spare for things like that just to find out of a statue is in fact a creature. Most people would just accept it for what it is at face value I imagine.

[Lukalaly]

This is where the second part of the condition comes in. Sure, it becomes mindless, but it also becomes inert. It loses the ability to perform actions, and thus cannot activate abilities. On a side note, a celestial giant fire beetle is not actually mindless, celestial creatures gain an intelligence score of 3 if they were mindless, or had an intelligence score below 3.

Yeah, I didn't realize that the smite was exclusive to celestial fire beetles, that's my bad. That's what I get for only looking at the srd. I'm almost positive there are more examples if you look around though.

But uh, where is inert defined in game? Nowhere that I'm aware of. Using dictionary definitions instead yields a result of "lacking the ability or strength to move." An example is "she lay inert in her bed." That makes sense as to not be able to take physical actions like moving, but since when are all actions physical? Supernatural abilities are explicitly mental, and a creature like a retriever is able to use said abilities despite being mindless. I didn't use them an example instead of the fire beetle (even though I found it first) because I'm pretty sure a retriever doesn't have flesh, what with being made of metal and all, so wouldn't be able to be hit by flesh to stone.

I really think the most interesting question is mending vs. regen though. Would regen even work if it was a creature? I feel like it would be pretty reasonable to say that it wouldn't, since you're still made of stone, and that you would need to cast it after they had been turned back to normal.


I mean, not everyone has the resources to spare for things like that just to find out of a statue is in fact a creature. Most people would just accept it for what it is at face value I imagine.

I didn't say a lot more. 1 is still more than 0.

[loky1109]

Would reattaching a broken off stone arm require a simple mending or regeneration?

This is good question, on which I want to know answer.

[Psyren]

I would say it's easier to fix the statue than to fix the person, so you'd generally want to do any repairs before you restore them.

I would even say that you could repair a damaged statue via nonmagical means.

[Wintermoot]

This is good question, on which I want to know answer.

Crusher Creel knows the answer.

http://www.comicsrecommended.com/images/longform/secret-wars-arm.jpg

[Batcathat]

I would say it's easier to fix the statue than to fix the person, so you'd generally want to do any repairs before you restore them.

I would even say that you could repair a damaged statue via nonmagical means.

It would be interesting to know what happens if you glue an arm back on a statue and then turn it human again. Even something like mending should probably have some odd results, considering the mended statue is all stone but a human arm is made up of lots of different things that really shouldn't mix. Though I'm probably trying to apply too much reason to something as ill-defined as D&D magic.

[Psyren]

Even something like mending should probably have some odd results, considering the mended statue is all stone but a human arm is made up of lots of different things that really shouldn't mix. Though I'm probably trying to apply too much reason to something as ill-defined as D&D magic.

I get where you're coming from and if I were running a more granular/nuanced form of magic, the kind that can result in owlbears in-universe, I'd consider something like this. But for regular play where spells are fairly reliable this doesn't add enough for me.

At best you would have players, say, rolling a bunch of checks to make sure they can gather up every original pebble from a broken teammate's statue, slowing the game to a crawl even if they succeed - and if they fail and the bow ranger comes back missing an arm, they are likely to just suicide charge the character into the nearest hill giant and immediately reroll.

[Batcathat]

At best you would have players, say, rolling a bunch of checks to make sure they can gather up every original pebble from a broken teammate's statue, slowing the game to a crawl even if they succeed - and if they fail and the bow ranger comes back missing an arm, they are likely to just suicide charge the character into the nearest hill giant and immediately reroll.

Yeah, you're probably right. While I like it from a world building perspective, it would probably just a be a pain in an actual game.

[Kuulvheysoon]

At worse, I'd probably say that the newly-revived character is missing some hit points. Quick lesser vigour later and it'd be like nothing happened.

[daryen]

Make any defects completely cosmetic. So, if they glued the arm back on, don't actually penalize the player, but leave them with a notable, cool scar. If every last pebble isn't there, then there is a nasty divot scar. Something like that. This shows the "wear-n-tear", but the character is still just as usable as before. (And NO "charisma penalty"; scars like that are cool!)

[Darg]

(And NO "charisma penalty"; scars like that are cool!)

Not all cultures regard scars as flaws. In fact many of them think of them as trophies or badges of honor and can be an attractive feature for a mate.

[Telok]

Inert, mindless, but still alive... for about three days (assuming human normal) before the "statue" dies of thirst?

The whole "not really a statue" makes things weird. I suppose that Stone Shape and Rock to Mud shouldn't work either then. It's a shame, since Flesh to Stone -> Stone Shape & a good craft check -> Stone to Flesh had some interesting plastic surgery applications.

[Crake]

Inert, mindless, but still alive... for about three days (assuming human normal) before the "statue" dies of thirst?

The whole "not really a statue" makes things weird. I suppose that Stone Shape and Rock to Mud shouldn't work either then. It's a shame, since Flesh to Stone -> Stone Shape & a good craft check -> Stone to Flesh had some interesting plastic surgery applications.

Well, inert kinda comes with the assumption that your metabolism is also inert as part of that process, so no dying of thirst, and likely, no ticking of poisons either.

[loky1109]

And NO "charisma penalty"; scars like that are cool!)

charisma != beauty

[Darg]

By definition, a petrified creature is as much of a creature as a dead creature. They are both conditions that are applied to creatures/characters (by definition these terms are used interchangeably). So it is possible to have a dead petrified creature. Unless you are of the camp that a corpse is always a dead creature which makes it an object. Even though this is provably false thanks to the stone to flesh spell.

[Lukalaly]

By definition, a petrified creature is as much of a creature as a dead creature. They are both conditions that are applied to creatures/characters (by definition these terms are used interchangeably). So it is possible to have a dead petrified creature. Unless you are of the camp that a corpse is always a dead creature which makes it an object. Even though this is provably false thanks to the stone to flesh spell.

As weird as it sounds, yeah, I don't see any reason why you couldn't petrify someone and then cast finger of death on them, thus making them a dead petrified creature. Worth noting though that flesh to stone doesn't technically apply petrification, like I've said. Though I don't see why stone to flesh proves that dead creatures aren't objects. I think it depends a bit more on context to determine if a corpse is a creature or an object, but I think that debate is far beyond the scope of this thread (which already has gone a bit off the rails, mostly due to me, sorry :smalleek:) so I won't touch on it any further.

[Darg]

As weird as it sounds, yeah, I don't see any reason why you couldn't petrify someone and then cast finger of death on them, thus making them a dead petrified creature. Worth noting though that flesh to stone doesn't technically apply petrification, like I've said. Though I don't see why stone to flesh proves that dead creatures aren't objects. I think it depends a bit more on context to determine if a corpse is a creature or an object, but I think that debate is far beyond the scope of this thread (which already has gone a bit off the rails, mostly due to me, sorry :smalleek:) so I won't touch on it any further.

While you say that, the PHB assumes it does:


If a creature using a shapechange effect becomes petrified by a flesh to stone spell, however, it turns into a mindless, inert statue, and the shapechange effect cannot help it escape.

Probably because the definition of being petrified is literally being turned to stone.

[Lukalaly]

While you say that, the PHB assumes it does:

Probably because the definition of being petrified is literally being turned to stone.

Huh, interesting. Odd that it doesn't just say it gives you the petrified condition then, since it doesn't say that it does. Also odd that it works differently than the petrified condition. I know that 3.5 has editing problems but at least make the friggin core books consistent. :smallmad: Though I'm not really sure how much it matters. How many ways are there to break out of petrification in core anyway? Obviously wish/miracle and the like, but I'm pretty sure greater resurrection doesn't undo it. So break enchantment/song of freedom and stone to flesh, then? I can't think of more off the top of my head, and those two would explicitly break flesh to stone. Maybe they just thought it wouldn't matter? That wouldn't surprise me.

Though if we're talking about consistency, at least they're able to consistently make game terms that they forget to use half the time.

[aquanight]

Don't think I saw this mentioned...

Can I just sneak in here real quick and point out that Stone to Flesh is also an instantaneous transmutation? And thus possibly eligible to cancel/reverse via Break Enchantment?

You'd have to beat the caster of StF on a CL check but then it's no save just stone.

[Darg]

Don't think I saw this mentioned...

Can I just sneak in here real quick and point out that Stone to Flesh is also an instantaneous transmutation? And thus possibly eligible to cancel/reverse via Break Enchantment?

You'd have to beat the caster of StF on a CL check but then it's no save just stone.

To be fair, break enchantment doesn't have a limit on the number of effects it breaks. So flesh to stone and stone to flesh would both be broken