Petrification

[RSP]

So it looks like there’s some differences in ways Petrification works in 5e. By my reading, some of these read as though Dispel Magic would end the effect, and others might not.

For instance, both the Beholder’s Petrification ray ability, and the Basilisk’s gaze state they’re magical, and contain the same wording of “On a failure, the creature is petrified until freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic.”

Dispel Magic states “Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.” As those two effects are clearly stated as being magic, RAW, it appears DM should be able to target it, and dispel it.

Now, Medusa’s Petrification ability never states it’s magical, and has slightly different wording: “The restrained creature must repeat the saving throw at the end of its next turn, becoming petrified on a failure or ending the effect on a success. The petrification lasts until the creature is freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic.”

DM certainly is “other magic” but it’s not stated this is a magic effect.

Flesh to Stone is clearly magic, but has this wording: “If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.”

Not sure if DM still works, but FtS is clearly a magical effect (as it comes from a spell). And it does state “the effect is removed”, which makes me think DM’s ability to target a magical effect would work on it.

Either way, the Behokder and Basilisk look like those effects are subjected to DM breaks per their wording.

Thoughts?

[stoutstien]

Dispel magic works on spells only so there is that. So it could end the spell version

I think greater restoration, wish, and a few lore based option with specific versions of it you better end it before you fail completely.

Oddly if you can get immunity to restrained condition you are mostly immune to petrified.

[JonBeowulf]

I just figured anywhere they added "or other magic", it was to give them room for expansion of items, spells, and abilities as well as specifically allow DMs to do what they want with their world.

[KorvinStarmast]

Oddly if you can get immunity to restrained condition you are mostly immune to petrified. And what offers that immunity? (Freedom of movement?)

[RSP]

Dispel magic works on spells only so there is that. So it could end the spell version

I think greater restoration, wish, and a few lore based option with specific versions of it you better end it before you fail completely.

Oddly if you can get immunity to restrained condition you are mostly immune to petrified.

DM specifically states it can target “magical effects”, not just spells.

Not sure the last part is correct: Petrified turns you into an “inanimate substance”. The inanimate substance, by definition, is incapable of movement. This is quite different than a creature’s movement being reduced.

[stoutstien]

DM specifically states it can target “magical effects”, not just spells.

You can target them all day but Dispel magic itself doesn't effect nonspell effect. It's stupid but if you are looking a raw that's the breaks.

**Stupidly they actually double down on this ruling**


And what offers that immunity? (Freedom of movement?)

Ring of free action

[stoutstien]

Not sure the last part is correct: Petrified turns you into an “inanimate substance”. The inanimate substance, by definition, is incapable of movement. This is quite different than a creature’s movement being reduced.

Besides the Medusa "fail by 5 or more" feature, the basilisk, and the cockatrice, all other forms of petrified effects call for a CON saves to be restrained and start turning to stone. If you are immune to the effect you don't make a save or at least you automatically pass them. Funny enough you can still move while making the saves in the cases above which is



It's like how being immune to poison now makes you immune to contagion as the condition is the delivery form of the effect.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ring of free action Having not memorized the treasure of this edition, all I can say is Thank you! :smallsmile:

[stoutstien]

Having not memorized the treasure of this edition, all I can say is Thank you! :smallsmile:

I have GM memory syndrome. I remember things that might have a major impact on world and encounter building and can remember the names of all the classes half the time.

[RSP]

Besides the Medusa "fail by 5 or more" feature, the basilisk, and the cockatrice, all other forms of petrified effects call for a CON saves to be restrained and start turning to stone. If you are immune to the effect you don't make a save or at least you automatically pass them. Funny enough you can still move while making the saves in the cases above which is



It's like how being immune to poison now makes you immune to contagion as the condition is the delivery form of the effect.

Here’s the wording from basilisk:

“On a failed save, the creature magically begins to turn to stone and is restrained. It must repeat the saving throw at the end of its next turn. On a success, the effect ends. On a failure, the creature is petrified until freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic.”

Nothing in this states they don’t progress to Petrified if they’re immune to Restrained. In fact, it clearly says they start turning to stone and are restrained. The “and” signifies its two things occurring.

[stoutstien]

Here’s the wording from basilisk:

“On a failed save, the creature magically begins to turn to stone and is restrained. It must repeat the saving throw at the end of its next turn. On a success, the effect ends. On a failure, the creature is petrified until freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic.”

Nothing in this states they don’t progress to Petrified if they’re immune to Restrained. In fact, it clearly says they start turning to stone and are restrained. The “and” signifies its two things occurring.

Yes now read how the Medusa entry and note the difference

[JonBeowulf]

Here’s the wording from basilisk:

“On a failed save, the creature magically begins to turn to stone and is restrained. It must repeat the saving throw at the end of its next turn. On a success, the effect ends. On a failure, the creature is petrified until freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic.”

Nothing in this states they don’t progress to Petrified if they’re immune to Restrained. In fact, it clearly says they start turning to stone and are restrained. The “and” signifies its two things occurring.

I'm not picking a side, but how would you handle incorporeal things (Gaseous Form, vampire's mist form, ghosts, etc.)? They are all immune to being restrained... should they still roll the Save?

[stoutstien]

I'm not picking a side, but how would you handle incorporeal things (Gaseous Form, vampire's mist form, ghosts, etc.)? They are all immune to being restrained... should they still roll the Save?

Some are but some aren't..it random lol

[RSP]

Yes now read how the Medusa entry and note the difference

I get what you’re saying regarding Medusa, however, both RoFA and FoM only prevent Restrained from magic. Nothing in Medusa says it’s a magic effect (unless I missed it)

[stoutstien]

I get what you’re saying regarding Medusa, however, both RoFA and FoM only prevent Restrained from magic. Nothing in Medusa says it’s a magic effect (unless I missed it)

It's not but is. Depends on the lore actually so it's hard to say. Are magically curses creatures innately magical? Also the mirror feature refers the gaze itself is a curse.

So you have to decide if curses are magic.

[kazaryu]

DM specifically states it can target “magical effects”, not just spells.

Not sure the last part is correct: Petrified turns you into an “inanimate substance”. The inanimate substance, by definition, is incapable of movement. This is quite different than a creature’s movement being reduced.
correct, you can target a magical effect. and dispel magic would end any spells that are on that magical effect. unless you're suggesting that dispel magic would also dispel creatures...since ya know, the spell targets them too.

its a common misconception, even I operated falsely under it at one point. However its clear that that wording of 'target a magical effect' is there you allow you to also dispel spells that aren't attached to objects or creatures. like wall of fire, for example.

[RSP]

correct, you can target a magical effect. and dispel magic would end any spells that are on that magical effect. unless you're suggesting that dispel magic would also dispel creatures...since ya know, the spell targets them too.

its a common misconception, even I operated falsely under it at one point. However its clear that that wording of 'target a magical effect' is there you allow you to also dispel spells that aren't attached to objects or creatures. like wall of fire, for example.

I very much disagree that it’s clear.

Even JC hasn’t figured it out. In 2017 he tweeted DM only works on spells; but then in 2018 he tweeted this: “When you use dispel magic to target a magical effect within range, you're choosing a discrete effect that you're aware of, often one created by a spell.” So the head designer very much says it’s only “often” that you’re using DM on a spell effect, but this at least heavily suggests it’s also used on non-spell magical effects.


It's not but is. Depends on the lore actually so it's hard to say. Are magically curses creatures innately magical? Also the mirror feature refers the gaze itself is a curse.

So you have to decide if curses are magic.

All of this is very iffy with RAW, but the “is it magic?” test says Medusa’s Petrification is not magical:

Is it a magic item? No
Is it a spell? No
Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description? No
Is it a spell attack? No
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? No
Does its description say it’s magical? No.

So, per WotC’s “test”, neither FoM nor RoFA does anything for the Restrained condition caused by a Medusa’s Petrifying gaze.

Not saying you need to go by this, just saying per this, it’s not magical.

[JackPhoenix]

I very much disagree that it’s clear.

Even JC hasn’t figured it out. In 2017 he tweeted DM only works on spells; but then in 2018 he tweeted this: “When you use dispel magic to target a magical effect within range, you're choosing a discrete effect that you're aware of, often one created by a spell.” So the head designer very much says it’s only “often” that you’re using DM on a spell effect, but this at least heavily suggests it’s also used on non-spell magical effects.

He's right. You can target non-spell-based magical effects, it just won't do anything except waste a slot. A target you can choose is not necessarily a target it will work on.

You can target a devil with Scorching Ray, but it's immune to fire, so it doesn't matter.

[RSP]

He's right. You can target non-spell-based magical effects, it just won't do anything except waste a slot. A target you can choose is not necessarily a target it will work on.

You can target a devil with Scorching Ray, but it's immune to fire, so it doesn't matter.

That’s not the same thing, though. A spell description specifically saying you can target something isn’t the same as a creature being immune to fire.

I agree DM doesn’t state what happens when targeting a non-spell, but if WotC decided it was worth an entire write up in SA to clarify that, contrary to the spell’s description (and prior JC tweets which were official rulings at one point), DM only works on spells; they really should have just changed “magical effect” to “spell effect” in the targeting description in an errata.

[JackPhoenix]

That’s not the same thing, though. A spell description specifically saying you can target something isn’t the same as a creature being immune to fire.

I agree DM doesn’t state what happens when targeting a non-spell, but if WotC decided it was worth an entire write up in SA to clarify that, contrary to the spell’s description (and prior JC tweets which were official rulings at one point), DM only works on spells; they really should have just changed “magical effect” to “spell effect” in the targeting description in an errata.

It is exactly the same thing. You can target a devil/magical effect. The target take fire damage/active spells on the target end. If the target is immune to magical damage/there's no spell to end, nothing has changed except you wasting a spell slot.

There's nothing contrary to the spell's description. Dispel Magic doesn't state what happens when targetting a non-spell for the same reason Scorching Ray doesn't state what happens when you target something immune to fire: It's obvious to anyone who can read and understand clear, simple text.

[RSP]

It is exactly the same thing. You can target a devil/magical effect. The target take fire damage/active spells on the target end. If the target is immune to magical damage/there's no spell to end, nothing has changed except you wasting a spell slot.

There's nothing contrary to the spell's description. Dispel Magic doesn't state what happens when targetting a non-spell for the same reason Scorching Ray doesn't state what happens when you target something immune to fire: It's obvious to anyone who can read and understand clear, simple text.

There’s a huge difference you’re stating, yet ignoring for some reason: the rules very much tell us what to do when a creature immune to fire damage takes fire damage.

The rules do not tell us what happens when DM targets a magical effect; the spell only tells us that we can specifically target a magical effect, but is silent on what then happens.

[Keltest]

There’s a huge difference you’re stating, yet ignoring for some reason: the rules very much tell us what to do when a creature immune to fire damage takes fire damage.

The rules do not tell us what happens when DM targets a magical effect; the spell only tells us that we can specifically target a magical effect, but is silent on what then happens.

If the rules dont say something happens, then nothing happens. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

[JackPhoenix]

There’s a huge difference you’re stating, yet ignoring for some reason: the rules very much tell us what to do when a creature immune to fire damage takes fire damage.

The rules do not tell us what happens when DM targets a magical effect; the spell only tells us that we can specifically target a magical effect, but is silent on what then happens.

Well, I'm not sure what version of Dispel Magic you're reading, because my book tells me EXACTLY what happens: "Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends."

[RSP]

Well, I'm not sure what version of Dispel Magic you're reading, because my book tells me EXACTLY what happens: "Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends."

That tells us what happens when a spell is targeted, but not what happens when a magical effect that is not a spell is targeted. The spell specifically states magical effects can be targeted, but doesn’t tell us what then happens.

[Keltest]

That tells us what happens when a spell is targeted, but not what happens when a magical effect that is not a spell is targeted. The spell specifically states magical effects can be targeted, but doesn’t tell us what then happens.

Yes it does. Any spells of 3rd level or lower end, etc... the same as normal. If there are none, then nothing happens.

[RSP]

If the rules dont say something happens, then nothing happens. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

Generally, if a spell says something can be specifically targeted by that spell, you expect there to be an effect on that target.

JC tweeted DM is used on non-spell magical effects.

WotC then figured it was worth doing a three paragraph write up on it only working on spells.

Why? Because if a spell specifically states it can target something, you expect there to be an effect of the spell on that target.


Yes it does. Any spells of 3rd level or lower end, etc... the same as normal. If there are none, then nothing happens.

So then why not say a “spell effect” can be targeted rather than a “magical effect”? It’s unnecessarily confusing to specifically say it can target something it has no effect on.

[Keltest]

Well, the ready explanation is so that you can't use DM as a spell checker to see if something is caused by a spell or something else without spending the spell slot.

[JackPhoenix]

Generally, if a spell says something can be specifically targeted by that spell, you expect there to be an effect on that target.

JC tweeted DM is used on non-spell magical effects.

You know what else it can be used on? Completely ordinary, non-magical rock (an object). Or Bob, a random commoner who never came within 10 miles of a spell in his entire life, until now (a creature). Now, I'm reasonably sure everyone playing the game... except you, apparently... doesn't expect the spell to have any effect on either the rock or Bob. Now, because I'm talking to you, and not everyone else playing the game... what effect do you expect Dispel Magic to have on the rock or Bob?


WotC then figured it was worth doing a three paragraph write up on it only working on spells.

{scrubbed}

[RSP]

Well, the ready explanation is so that you can't use DM as a spell checker to see if something is caused by a spell or something else without spending the spell slot.

If the explanation is that WotC used that wording to purposely trick players so that they’ll waste spell slots, that’s even more reason why it’s not “clear” what DM effects.

It’s my understanding, however, that 5e isn’t written as a “gotcha” game, which would suggest that’s not the reason for the wording.

[Keltest]

If the explanation is that WotC used that wording to purposely trick players so that they’ll waste spell slots, that’s even more reason why it’s not “clear” what DM effects.

It’s my understanding, however, that 5e isn’t written as a “gotcha” game, which would suggest that’s not the reason for the wording.

They arent "tricking" players, if somebody wants to know what a magical effect is or does, they just have to spend the spell slot on it either way. They can use identify, or detect magic as appropriate, or you can take the gamble and just try to dispel it, spend the slot, and see if the magic goes away.

[RSP]

They arent "tricking" players, if somebody wants to know what a magical effect is or does, they just have to spend the spell slot on it either way. They can use identify, or detect magic as appropriate, or you can take the gamble and just try to dispel it, spend the slot, and see if the magic goes away.

It is tricking if the intent of the wording is to cause players to think they can do something they can’t: the “spell checker” as you called it.

As you state, there’s lower level spells that are way more effective at that if it’s what you need.

Wording a spell description in a way to intentionally have players use a 3rd level spell to see if something is a spell, while foregoing what makes it worthy of a 3rd level spell, is very much not a spell description written in good faith. I don’t believe that’s what WotC was going for.

[Keltest]

It is tricking if the intent of the wording is to cause players to think they can do something they can’t: the “spell checker” as you called it.

As you state, there’s lower level spells that are way more effective at that if it’s what you need.

Wording a spell description in a way to intentionally have players use a 3rd level spell to see if something is a spell, while foregoing what makes it worthy of a 3rd level spell, is very much not a spell description written in good faith. I don’t believe that’s what WotC was going for.

So, the point is that they DONT want people to be doing that and are avoiding it by making sure the spell slot is expended regardless, encouraging them to use a better tool actually designed for it. If they didnt have that wording, you could test to see if its a spell by seeing if you could target it, and then backing out when the DM said yea or nay.

[rel]

Sure, I'd allow dispel magic to break magical petrification.

[kazaryu]

I very much disagree that it’s clear.

Even JC hasn’t figured it out. In 2017 he tweeted DM only works on spells; but then in 2018 he tweeted this: “When you use dispel magic to target a magical effect within range, you're choosing a discrete effect that you're aware of, often one created by a spell.” So the head designer very much says it’s only “often” that you’re using DM on a spell effect, but this at least heavily suggests it’s also used on non-spell magical effects.
.

no...he's saying that you're targeting a discrete magical effect. and often those effects are caused by spells. those 2 tweets aren't in contradiction with each other. and even if they were, they wouldn't change what the spell explicitly says.

the spell doesn't say that just because you can target it, you're going to remove it. again, if what you can target is whats removed, then dispel magic can delete anything. because it also targets creatures and objects. the spell says you can target magical effects...and then later, when describing what effect the spell has on the target, it says that you end spells. there is no ambiguity there. there is only not completely reading the spell description.


There’s a huge difference you’re stating, yet ignoring for some reason: the rules very much tell us what to do when a creature immune to fire damage takes fire damage.

The rules do not tell us what happens when DM targets a magical effect; the spell only tells us that we can specifically target a magical effect, but is silent on what then happens.

no spell describe what happens to the target in the section where it says what you can target...you have to keep reading to read what the spell does to its target. this is like saying 'hold person says i can target humanoids...but doesnt say what happens to them.

the spell does exactly the same thing to magical effects that it does to everything else it can target....ends spells on them.




So then why not say a “spell effect” can be targeted rather than a “magical effect”? It’s unnecessarily confusing to specifically say it can target something it has no effect on.

why are you asking us why they phrased things the way they did? we'd need actual magic to know for certain...but the fact that we're asking the question doesn't mean there's any ambiguity in how the spell functions. but i'll try to come up with some explanations anyway.

1. to allow you to target effects that are obviously magical, even if you don't know that they're spells. (a la, a wall of fire)

2. because 'spell effects' as a category don't really exists. all spell effects are magical effects.

3. because the creators imagines a DM creating a non-spell magical effects with spells attached to it. so allowing you to target magical effects as a whole, rather than just spell effects, would allow you to dispel all spells affecting the magical effect, just like you can with a creature or an object.

4. because they didn't think of saying spell effects. or they just liked the way 'magical effects' sounded.

there ya go, pick your poison. ultimately it doesn't matter because the spell text is incredibly clear on what it does and how it functions.

[stoutstien]

I very much disagree that it’s clear.

Even JC hasn’t figured it out. In 2017 he tweeted DM only works on spells; but then in 2018 he tweeted this: “When you use dispel magic to target a magical effect within range, you're choosing a discrete effect that you're aware of, often one created by a spell.” So the head designer very much says it’s only “often” that you’re using DM on a spell effect, but this at least heavily suggests it’s also used on non-spell magical effects.



All of this is very iffy with RAW, but the “is it magic?” test says Medusa’s Petrification is not magical:

Is it a magic item? No
Is it a spell? No
Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description? No
Is it a spell attack? No
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? No
Does its description say it’s magical? No.

So, per WotC’s “test”, neither FoM nor RoFA does anything for the Restrained condition caused by a Medusa’s Petrifying gaze.

Not saying you need to go by this, just saying per this, it’s not magical.

The test omits curses. It's a huge blind spot in the system even if they are fairly widespread in the lore and mechanics. We have guidelines that say detect magic would show that cursed items are inherently magical but wouldn't say it's cursed flat out.....and that's it.


So you have to ask yourself what happens if you cast remove curse on either the petrified target from the Medusa gaze or even the Medusa themself.

[RSP]

The test omits curses. It's a huge blind spot in the system even if they are fairly widespread in the lore and mechanics. We have guidelines that say detect magic would show that cursed items are inherently magical but wouldn't say it's cursed flat out.....and that's it.


So you have to ask yourself what happens if you cast remove curse on either the petrified target from the Medusa gaze or even the Medusa themself.

The ability doesn’t refer to a curse at all.

If you’re referring to the Medusa being cursed, well that’s not the same thing. You can’t undo damage caused by a cursed weapon or creature with Remove Curse, for instance.

If the Medusa is cursed, and you want to help it, sure, go ahead and cast Remove Curse on her.

But nothing in the ability states it’s magical (or a curse) so even if you want to exempt curses from the magic rule, the ability isn’t a curse.

Also, I’m not sure the system sees curses as magical. I would not expect Detect Magic to reveal a lycanthrope in humanoid or animal form, for instance. My initial take is that an anti-magic zone wouldn’t undo lycanthropy or a Medusa (this could be changed, just my initial thought on the idea).

A magical item, that is curse, is still a magical item in terms of it being magical: it may well be the curse isn’t revealed because it’s not magical in terms of the 5e system.

[stoutstien]

The ability doesn’t refer to a curse at all.

If you’re referring to the Medusa being cursed, well that’s not the same thing. You can’t undo damage caused by a cursed weapon or creature with Remove Curse, for instance.

If the Medusa is cursed, and you want to help it, sure, go ahead and cast Remove Curse on her.

But nothing in the ability states it’s magical (or a curse) so even if you want to exempt curses from the magic rule, the ability isn’t a curse.

Maybe but that is operating under a presence that the NPC were following some sort of set pattern rather than multiple different authors adding content with a "close enough" approach. Are curses always magical? Yes but no. They flip flop on that like all this grey area stuff.

If you are going for the Greek inspired angle then it's probably not magic but if you are going off the flavor text about ppl seeking powerful wizards to purposely becomes a Medusa via magic then maybe because then it's like lichdom and to have to figure out a ton of messy things like what happens when you have one in an anti magic field and so on. RAW is a cluster of rabbit holes if you don't take a step back.

[RSP]

Maybe but that is operating under a presence that the NPC were following some sort of set pattern rather than multiple different authors adding content with a "close enough" approach. Are curses always magical? Yes but no. They flip flop on that like all this grey area stuff.

I’ll agree 5e isn’t presented as a straightforward idea, and does appear to be written by multiple people; but that doesn’t change anything about what is actually written or presented.



If you are going for the Greek inspired angle then it's probably not magic but if you are going off the flavor text about ppl seeking powerful wizards to purposely becomes a Medusa via magic then maybe because then it's like lichdom and to have to figure out a ton of messy things like what happens when you have one in an anti magic field and so on. RAW is a cluster of rabbit holes if you don't take a step back.

I’m going off what’s written in the rules.

If a powerful Wizard turned someone into a Medusa, I’d assume True Polymorph was used, or a homebrewed upcast Bestow Curse effect (if going off Medusa’s being cursed and wanting to maintain that).

But either would be dispel-able by Dispel Magic, while Remove Curse would do nothing against True Polymorph, but would undo the Bestow Curse version.

RAW certainly has issues (like the targeting of magical effects in DM), however, I feel knowing what is in the RAW is a good start in how to adjudicate issues for a table. At the very least, it allows you to have some sense of what other rules will be hit upon when adjudicating a situation one way or another.

It sounds like in 5.5 they’re trying to better identify what is magic versus what isn’t magic. That’ll help and be a welcome change.

[stoutstien]

I’ll agree 5e isn’t presented as a straightforward idea, and does appear to be written by multiple people; but that doesn’t change anything about what is actually written or presented.



I’m going off what’s written in the rules.

If a powerful Wizard turned someone into a Medusa, I’d assume True Polymorph was used, or a homebrewed upcast Bestow Curse effect (if going off Medusa’s being cursed and wanting to maintain that).

But either would be dispel-able by Dispel Magic, while Remove Curse would do nothing against True Polymorph, but would undo the Bestow Curse version.

RAW certainly has issues (like the targeting of magical effects in DM), however, I feel knowing what is in the RAW is a good start in how to adjudicate issues for a table. At the very least, it allows you to have some sense of what other rules will be hit upon when adjudicating a situation one way or another.

NPCs don't follow the same rules and PCs. "Power magic" and "curse" are used a lot as catch alls to apply effects without much fore thought in how they interact with anything else. They didn't use bestowed curse or polymorph. They just waves their hands while shouting magic

It's like all the actions that look like a spell, quack like a spell, but aren't spells. (Which isn't really an issue if the system had a way for the players to interact with them past playing the RaW wack a mole game.)

[Chronos]

OK, let's take a concrete example. An Ice Devil uses its Wall of Ice ability. This produces a magical effect, which isn't a spell (it's very similar to the Wall of Ice spell, but it's not the same thing). Then, a wizard comes along and uses Prestidigitation to turn the ice a pretty shade of pink. Another wizard now comes along and decides she doesn't like pink, so she dispels it.

The second wizard targets the Ice Wall, which she can do, because she can target a magical effect. Dispel Magic then ends all spell effects on its target, specifically, the Prestidigitation. Result? The ice wall is still there, but isn't pink any more.

On the Flesh to Stone spell: If someone casts Flesh to Stone on your ally, and the duration isn't up yet, then you can use Dispel Magic to save them. Once the duration is up, though, the spell has already ended, and you can't end a spell that's already ended. At that point, you need some more powerful magic (such as Greater Restoration, Stone to Flesh, or Wish).

[RSP]

NPCs don't follow the same rules and PCs. "Power magic" and "curse" are used a lot as catch alls to apply effects without much fore thought in how they interact with anything else. They didn't use bestowed curse or polymorph. They just waves their hands while shouting magic

It's like all the actions that look like a spell, quack like a spell, but aren't spells. (Which isn't really an issue if the system had a way for the players to interact with them past playing the RaW wack a mole game.)

(Not sure what “RaW” is)

Agree NPCs and PC don’t have to follow the same rules. I gave my resolution to the situation of how a Medusa is formed under the assumption that it somehow involved the PCs. I wasn’t concerned with lore or anything like that.

I haven’t looked into too much, but my understanding is there was an issue with one of the more recent books that made monster/npc “spells” not actually spells, meaning what a Player thought they could Counterspell/Dispel Magic, was no longer the case, most likely due to WotC not thinking about that effect in changing the actions. It’s also probably why (at least in part) in the 2024 edition, they appear to be more intentional in how they classify magic and spells.

[stoutstien]

(Not sure what “RaW” is)

Agree NPCs and PC don’t have to follow the same rules. I gave my resolution to the situation of how a Medusa is formed under the assumption that it somehow involved the PCs. I wasn’t concerned with lore or anything like that.

I haven’t looked into too much, but my understanding is there was an issue with one of the more recent books that made monster/npc “spells” not actually spells, meaning what a Player thought they could Counterspell/Dispel Magic, was no longer the case, most likely due to WotC not thinking about that effect in changing the actions. It’s also probably why (at least in part) in the 2024 edition, they appear to be more intentional in how they classify magic and spells.

No idea what they are planning for the next edition as the general direction hold zero interest for me but removing lore connections is a big component on why it doesn't. Nice clean definitive labels for interactions for stuff is great for forum talk but it horrible for actual gameplay. Taking NPCs and making them function outside of lore is just bleh.

[RSP]

OK, let's take a concrete example. An Ice Devil uses its Wall of Ice ability. This produces a magical effect, which isn't a spell (it's very similar to the Wall of Ice spell, but it's not the same thing). Then, a wizard comes along and uses Prestidigitation to turn the ice a pretty shade of pink. Another wizard now comes along and decides she doesn't like pink, so she dispels it.

The second wizard targets the Ice Wall, which she can do, because she can target a magical effect. Dispel Magic then ends all spell effects on its target, specifically, the Prestidigitation. Result? The ice wall is still there, but isn't pink any more.

On the Flesh to Stone spell: If someone casts Flesh to Stone on your ally, and the duration isn't up yet, then you can use Dispel Magic to save them. Once the duration is up, though, the spell has already ended, and you can't end a spell that's already ended. At that point, you need some more powerful magic (such as Greater Restoration, Stone to Flesh, or Wish).

I’m not sure this thinking is correct. “Permeant” durations can be dispelled because the magic is continuing in perpetuity. “Instantaneous” durations cannot be dispelled because the magic did its thing and then stopped. From Sage Advice:

“Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic (see PH, 203). The magic flares for a split second and then vanishes…

In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field.”

FtS says the following: “If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.”

It doesn’t say the duration changes or becomes Instantaneous or Permanent.

The SA test is that it has to be Instantaneous to be non-dispellable, so according to that, it is, in fact, dispellable. Likewise, FtS states “until the effect is removed”. So it’s still a magical effect that comes from a spell, and we know Dispel Magic works on magical effects that come from spells.

A DM could absolutely rule that FtS becomes Instantaneous at the end of the Concentration requirement, but that’s a DM ruling, not the spell as written. And the hypothetical DM could just as easily rule it’s a “Permanent” duration or rule neither and just take the spell as written, with or without the SA ruling.

As for the “concrete example” doesn’t that in fact prove it’s not clear? If there are intentional effects meant to trick Players into using resources that won’t have an effect, then isn’t that intentional deception itself evidence of the DM effect not being clear? That’s a “gotcha” moment, which the devs, I believe, have specifically stated we’re not how they wrote the rules of 5e.


No idea what they are planning for the next edition as the general direction hold zero interest for me but removing lore connections is a big component on why it doesn't. Nice clean definitive labels for interactions for stuff is great for forum talk but it horrible for actual gameplay. Taking NPCs and making them function outside of lore is just bleh.

Sure, I respect your opinion/take. But that doesn’t impact the discussion of what the rules say about the interactions.

Nor does it change whether or not DM is clear in how it affects the targeting of non-spell magical effects.

And just to be transparent about this: the idea of all this came up in game play. My DM (not me) determined the overlap between DM targeting Petrification’s magical effect, and the wording of that effect stating “… the creature is petrified until freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic.”

Dispel Magic is “other magic” and can target magical effects.

In researching this situation afterward, we came across the SA on this and he decided to go with that for the future.

But it’s not something that’s clear or obvious.

[kazaryu]

I’m not sure this thinking is correct. “Permeant” durations can be dispelled because the magic is continuing in perpetuity. “Instantaneous” durations cannot be dispelled because the magic did its thing and then stopped. From Sage Advice:

“Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic (see PH, 203). The magic flares for a split second and then vanishes…It doesn’t say the duration changes or becomes Instantaneous or Permanent.

The SA test is that it has to be Instantaneous to be non-dispellable, so according to that, it is, in fact, dispellable. Likewise, FtS states “until the effect is removed”. So it’s still a magical effect that comes from a spell, and we know Dispel Magic works on magical effects that come from spells.

sage advice isn't rules. at best it can be seen as a glimpse into what is intended...but its also not great at that. since not only were there more people than just crawford/mearls that wrote the rules (meaning that they may not have any idea as to the intent...in the first place) there was also a significant time gap between when the rules were written and when sage advice came out. so unless there are written notes, from the time the rules were written, its just...not a great source overall. its far better to think of SA as just another potential DM weighing in on their own interpretation. for example, in this instance its likely is that whoever said this, likely crawford? wasn't thinking about spells like flesh to stone. because flesh to stone doesn't fit neatly into that box. if you look at the logic that that sage advice used, you can see why. in true polymorph, for example, explicitly says that the duration becomes permanent. meaning that the spell is still active and sustaining the effect. flesh to stone doesn't say that. of course it doesn't say that the duration becomes instantaneous...how could it, its already been in effect for 1 minute, it can't suddenly have 0 duration. Instead, the way the spell is phrased, the spell ends 'if you maintain your concentration for the entire possible duration' but the effect it had remains, the flesh of the creature has turned to stone. just because it says effect, doesn't mean its a magical effect. in the same way i could cast mage hand and use mage hand to move a jar from one shelf to another. mage hand has a duration that is non-instantaneous. but once the spell ends, its effects (the jar moving) would remain. obviously you can't dispel those.




A DM could absolutely rule that FtS becomes Instantaneous at the end of the Concentration requirement, but that’s a DM ruling, not the spell as written. And the hypothetical DM could just as easily rule it’s a “Permanent” duration or rule neither and just take the spell as written, with or without the SA ruling. you have this backwards. as written the spell ends, its maximum possible duration has elapsed. the magic is no longer required to maintain the effect.


As for the “concrete example” doesn’t that in fact prove it’s not clear? If there are intentional effects meant to trick Players into using resources that won’t have an effect, then isn’t that intentional deception itself evidence of the DM effect not being clear? That’s a “gotcha” moment, which the devs, I believe, have specifically stated we’re not how they wrote the rules of 5e.

.

its not about tricking the player...a DM could use it to trick the player, but that isn't what the rules is there fore.

if you couldn't target 'magical effects' you would be unable to dispel wall of fire, or whirlwind, or call lightning, or silent image, or major image, or even minor image. because none of those create creatures or objects, nor are they attached to creatures of objects.

[RSP]

sage advice isn't rules.

It’s the official clarification of the rules. They aren’t RAW. No one says you need to like them or play with them, but that’s what they are.



…in true polymorph, for example, explicitly says that the duration becomes permanent. meaning that the spell is still active and sustaining the effect. flesh to stone doesn't say that. …Instead, the way the spell is phrased, the spell ends 'if you maintain your concentration for the entire possible duration' but the effect it had remains, the flesh of the creature has turned to stone. just because it says effect, doesn't mean its a magical effect.

You can rule it as you like at your table, but that doesn’t make your ruling the rules. I’ve gone over the RAW and the SA explanation.

The effect lasts until removed with FtS, and that effect is a magical one caused by a spell. A magical spell effect being maintained is what DM can target.



you have this backwards. as written the spell ends, its maximum possible duration has elapsed. the magic is no longer required to maintain the effect.

No, the spell doesn’t end: the spell lasts “until the effect is removed.”

[kazaryu]

It’s the official clarification of the rules. They aren’t RAW. No one says you need to like them or play with them, but that’s what they are. and yet...that ruling doesn't affect FTS...because the way FTS works, per the text of the spell, follows the same logic as the explanation of instantaneous effects...without being one. its almost like the sage advice is either incomplete, or self contradictory.




You can rule it as you like at your table, but that doesn’t make your ruling the rules. I’ve gone over the RAW and the SA explanation. mine isn't a ruling...its literally reading the rules.


The effect lasts until removed with FtS, and that effect is a magical one caused by a spell. A magical spell effect being maintained is what DM can target. it can also target a creature, or object. all of which are potentially true of a petrified creature. but just because you can target it...doesn't mean you can remove it. there is no spell active to remove. the spells maximum possible duration has expired. there is no spell to remove, therefore DM can't dispel it.




No, the spell doesn’t end: the spell lasts “until the effect is removed.”

no...the effect lasts until its removed. not the spell. the creature remains stone until the effect is removed...i.e. something makes them not stone. nothing about that statement implies that the spell has continued...in fact, the sentence itself implies the spell has ended...because, once again, this is a clause that comes into effect after the spells entire possible duration.

i can understand being initially confused by this, on like a first glance. but taking the time to actually think about what the spell is saying is enough to understand that the spell has ended.

that said, you can believe what you want. at this point we're just talking in circles.

[RSP]

no...the effect lasts until its removed. not the spell..

So, then it’s an ongoing magical effect from a spell? And it’s not Instantaneous duration?

[Chronos]

It can't be an ongoing magical effect from a spell, because the spell is over. There isn't anything to dispel.

[RSP]

It can't be an ongoing magical effect from a spell, because the spell is over. There isn't anything to dispel.

How is the spell over if the spell effect still going and it’s not Instantaneous?

Why is the default to make it Instantaneous, which is the only non-dispellable spell effect per SA, rather than until dispelled, like TP?

[Keltest]

How is the spell over if the spell effect still going and it’s not Instantaneous?

Why is the default to make it Instantaneous, which is the only non-dispellable spell effect per SA, rather than until dispelled, like TP?

How does Inflict Wounds not have a duration if the damage stays inflicted?

[Lord Vukodlak]

How does Inflict Wounds not have a duration if the damage stays inflicted?

The same way a stab from a sword doesn't have a duration.

[RSP]

How does Inflict Wounds not have a duration if the damage stays inflicted?

Huh? Inflict Wounds does have a duration: Instantaneous. Which, per SA, is what’s required to NOT be dispelable. FtS doesn’t have that.


The same way a stab from a sword doesn't have a duration.

Except there aren’t rules in the system saying a stab from a sword is dispelable.

So is no spell dispelable because a stab from a sword doesn’t have a duration? Your logic here makes zero sense to me.

[Keltest]

Huh? Inflict Wounds does have a duration: Instantaneous. Which, per SA, is what’s required to NOT be dispelable. FtS doesn’t have that.



Except there aren’t rules in the system saying a stab from a sword is dispelable.

So is no spell dispelable because a stab from a sword doesn’t have a duration? Your logic here makes zero sense to me.

Delayed Blast Fireball then. Its got a duration of up to one minute, then it deals damage and the spell ends. That's got a duration, how come I can't dispel the damage it deals when thats clearly an effect of the spell?

There are other examples too. If you move something with telekinesis, the thing doesn't rubber band back to where it started from when the spell ends. Gate doesnt force whatever entitied moved through it to go back where they came from.

[RSP]

Delayed Blast Fireball then. Its got a duration of up to one minute, then it deals damage and the spell ends. That's got a duration, how come I can't dispel the damage it deals when thats clearly an effect of the spell?

There are other examples too. If you move something with telekinesis, the thing doesn't rubber band back to where it started from when the spell ends. Gate doesnt force whatever entitied moved through it to go back where they came from.

Do any of those specifically say that the duration changes and the effects lasts until removed?

That’s a key part you’re not including in your comparisons, I think. FtS specifically applies a Condition to a target and specifically states the creature maintains that Condition until the effect is removed.

That type of wording isn’t present in any of your other examples.

[Keltest]

Do any of those specifically say that the duration changes and the effects lasts until removed?

That’s a key part you’re not including in your comparisons, I think. FtS specifically applies a Condition to a target and specifically states the creature maintains that Condition until the effect is removed.

That type of wording isn’t present in any of your other examples.

The duration of Flesh to Stone is explicitly not changed, because the condition for it becoming permanent is for the petrification to last the entire duration. Obviously that is impossible if the duration is changed in the process.

[RSP]

The duration of Flesh to Stone is explicitly not changed, because the condition for it becoming permanent is for the petrification to last the entire duration. Obviously that is impossible if the duration is changed in the process.

The duration does change, but not in a clear game term way. Teleportation Circle has unique wording as well: “You can create a permanent teleportation circle by casting this spell in the same location every day for one year.” Is TC dispellable?

You’re assuming FtS not dispelable, even though SA says it is:

“Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend…

In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field.”

FtS, does indeed have a non-instantaneous duration, meaning according to SA, it can be dispelled (as can Teleportation Circle).

Doesn’t mean you need to follow SA, just that the devs say that’s the official ruling.

I find it hard to say “FtS clearly can’t be dispelled” when the SA says otherwise.

[kazaryu]

Do any of those specifically say that the duration changes and the effects lasts until removed?

That’s a key part you’re not including in your comparisons, I think. FtS specifically applies a Condition to a target and specifically states the creature maintains that Condition until the effect is removed.

That type of wording isn’t present in any of your other examples.

no, because damage by default, remains after the spells duration ends. whereas status effects, by default, end when the spell does. so if you want the status effect to remain after the spell ends, you need to specify that. but the effect remaining, doesn't imply that the spell continues.

[Keltest]

The duration does change, but not in a clear game term way. Teleportation Circle has unique wording as well: “You can create a permanent teleportation circle by casting this spell in the same location every day for one year.” Is TC dispellable?

You’re assuming FtS not dispelable, even though SA says it is:

“Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend…

In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field.”

FtS, does indeed have a non-instantaneous duration, meaning according to SA, it can be dispelled (as can Teleportation Circle).

Doesn’t mean you need to follow SA, just that the devs say that’s the official ruling.

I find it hard to say “FtS clearly can’t be dispelled” when the SA says otherwise.

The quote you provided says nothing about dispelling something after the duration has ended. You can, indeed, dispel it during the duration, but once that duration has ended theres nothing left to dispel, because, well, the duration has ended. Thats what it means for the spell to last the full duration, you see.


no, because damage by default, remains after the spells duration ends. whereas status effects, by default, end when the spell does. so if you want the status effect to remain after the spell ends, you need to specify that. but the effect remaining, doesn't imply that the spell continues.

Adding to this, when a spell lasts until dispelled, it says as much, such as Simulacrum or Bestow Curse.

[RSP]

The quote you provided says nothing about dispelling something after the duration has ended. You can, indeed, dispel it during the duration, but once that duration has ended theres nothing left to dispel, because, well, the duration has ended. Thats what it means for the spell to last the full duration, you see.

FtS changes to “until removed”. That’s very similar to “until dispelled.” How can you remove a condition caused by a spell? Multiple ways, in fact. If it said “until dispelled” then Greater Restoration wouldn’t work on it, as it would need to be dispelled. By stating “until removed”, the language allows more ways to solve the condition than just thru dispelling.

Again, I don’t care how people play it: I’m standing by it not being clear though.

[Keltest]

FtS changes to “until removed”. That’s very similar to “until dispelled.” How can you remove a condition caused by a spell? Multiple ways, in fact. If it said “until dispelled” then Greater Restoration wouldn’t work on it, as it would need to be dispelled. By stating “until removed”, the language allows more ways to solve the condition than just thru dispelling.

Again, I don’t care how people play it: I’m standing by it not being clear though.

I don't care how similar it is. Its not the same thing, as evidenced by being a different thing. Given that you're the only one who can't understand it, the problem seems to be with you, rather than the description.

[RSP]

I don't care how similar it is. Its not the same thing, as evidenced by being a different thing. Given that you're the only one who can't understand it, the problem seems to be with you, rather than the description.

What am I not understanding? I’ve quoted the rules: I haven’t seen anything quoted that shows otherwise

Is “until dispelled” more or less restrictive than “until removed”, in your opinion?

“Until dispelled” can only be removed with dispel magic. But “until removed” allows additional ways to undo the Petrification - it’s anything that can remove it: a magic item, dispel magic, greater res, perhaps others.

In your opinion, would Dispel Magic remove the Petrification condition if it’s cast during the Concentration phase of the spell?

[Keltest]

What am I not understanding? I’ve quoted the rules: I haven’t seen anything quoted that shows otherwise

Is “until dispelled” more or less restrictive than “until removed”, in your opinion?

“Until dispelled” can only be removed with dispel magic. But “until removed” allows additional ways to undo the Petrification - it’s anything that can remove it: a magic item, dispel magic, greater res, perhaps others.

In your opinion, would Dispel Magic remove the Petrification condition if it’s cast during the Concentration phase of the spell?

Yes, because the spell is still active. Once the spell runs the full duration, the spell ends, but the petrified condition does not, so you need something like a greater restoration spell, because DM can't end a spell that isn't there.

[RSP]

Yes, because the spell is still active. Once the spell runs the full duration, the spell ends, but the petrified condition does not, so you need something like a greater restoration spell, because DM can't end a spell that isn't there.

But the spell effect IS still active, which is what DM cares about. There is no way to say the magical effect from a spell that maintains the Petrification effect isn’t still in effect.

So when you cast DM, you’re choosing a magical effect - which is permitted by DMs targeting rule.

You then come across the rest of DM:

“Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends.”

Is FtS a spell of 4th level or higher that is on the target? Yes, it is. The spell effect is on the target until removed. If it’s not the effect of FtS that’s keeping the target Petrified, what is? FtS is a spell on the target.

Okay, then roll the check to dispel.

Likewise with Teleportation Circle. There’s a magical circle on the ground that’s the effect of a spell. If you cast DM on it, MC could dispel it.

[Keltest]

But the spell effect IS still active, which is what DM cares about. There is no way to say the magical effect from a spell that maintains the Petrification effect isn’t still in effect.

So when you cast DM, you’re choosing a magical effect - which is permitted by DMs targeting rule.

You then come across the rest of DM:

“Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends.”

Is FtS a spell of 4th level or higher that is on the target? Yes, it is. The spell effect is on the target until removed. If it’s not the effect of FtS that’s keeping the target Petrified, what is? FtS is a spell on the target.

Okay, then roll the check to dispel.

Likewise with Teleportation Circle. There’s a magical circle on the ground that’s the effect of a spell. If you cast DM on it, MC could dispel it.

No, FtS is no longer on the target. The spell ended at the end if the duration. What is on the target is the petrified status, which DM does nothing about.

[kazaryu]

But the spell effect IS still active, which is what DM cares about. There is no way to say the magical effect from a spell that maintains the Petrification effect isn’t still in effect.

the spell literally says the the petrification remains after the spells full possible duration. how can the spell still be in effect after its full possible duration? the spells duration is over...the effect the spell had remains. there's no spell, only the effect it had. just like moving things with telekinesis. or dealing damage with duration based spell. However, with the petrification, since status effects generally go away after the spells duration elapsed, they needed to specify that the this status effect doesn't. even though the spell is finished the effect it has doesn't go away.

[RSP]

No, FtS is no longer on the target. The spell ended at the end if the duration. What is on the target is the petrified status, which DM does nothing about.

It’s specifically referred to as “the effect” (“If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.”).

What “effect” is being referred to, if not the spell effect causing Petrification?

In the PHB, under Duration, here’s what it says: “Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.” FtS absolutely falls into this category. The effect lasts until it’s removed, which includes dispelling, not to mention removing the effect destroys it.

Is it a magical effect of a spell? Yes.

If you cast Identify on the statue would it reveal FtS is on the target? Yes, because the effect is still ongoing. Likewise, it would be seen with Detect Magic, as it’s a magical effect.

[Keltest]

It’s specifically referred to as “the effect” (“If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.”).

What “effect” is being referred to, if not the spell effect causing Petrification?

In the PHB, under Duration, here’s what it says: “Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.” FtS absolutely falls into this category. The effect lasts until it’s removed, which includes dispelling, not to mention removing the effect destroys it.

Is it a magical effect of a spell? Yes.

If you cast Identify on the statue would it reveal FtS is on the target? Yes, because the effect is still ongoing. Likewise, it would be seen with Detect Magic, as it’s a magical effect.

No. FtS explicitly tells you how it works, and it does not work that way. The spell ends and the status remains.

[RSP]

the spell literally says the the petrification remains after the spells full possible duration. how can the spell still be in effect after its full possible duration?

It says “the effect” remains until removed: that’s the spell effect. It literally says it in what you’re trying to quote. The duration is not over: the spell description states it lasts longer.

It doesn’t compare to those other spells, because they don’t have similar descriptions of how long the effects last.

[Keltest]

It says “the effect” remains until removed: that’s the spell effect. It literally says it in what you’re trying to quote. The duration is not over: the spell description states it lasts longer.

It doesn’t compare to those other spells, because they don’t have similar descriptions of how long the effects last.

The duration has to be over, because that's the prerequisite for making the petrification permanent. It literally says it is over in unambiguous language.

[RSP]

No. FtS explicitly tells you how it works, and it does not work that way. The spell ends and the status remains.

Yes, it does! Which is what I’ve cited repeatedly. I’ve noticed you’ve failed to back up your position with rules. I have, repeatedly, cited the rules. I’ll do so again here:

The spell at no point references a “status” so I have no idea why you think that word is pertinent here. Petrified isn’t a “status” anyway, it’s a Condition. Here’s the pertinent rule on Conditions:

“A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.”

FtS is the effect that imposed the Petrified Condition in this case. The spell description tells us how long it last: until removed.

The spell effect continues until removed.

If you cast Identify on the Petrified target of FtS, what do you learn?

If you cast Detect Magic in the radius of the Petrified target, what do you see?


The duration has to be over, because that's the prerequisite for making the petrification permanent. It literally says it is over in unambiguous language.

First, no it doesn’t say that. It says: “If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.” It references the time you’re Concentrating on the spell.

At no point does it say the spell is over. It does, however, unambiguously states the effect in the spell description lasts “until the effect is removed”.

If the effect hasn’t been removed, therefore, the effect is still ongoing.

[Keltest]

The spell can't be longer than it's own duration, that's not how words work.

[RSP]

The spell can't be longer than it's own duration, that's not how words work.

The rule on Duration specifically allows for special durations:

“ Duration
A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.”

This allows for the effect to continue until it is removed, as stated in the spell description. (Technically, this general rule on Durations isn’t needed due to Specific beats General, but it’s still there, and helps explain that this occurs.)

Like how Nystuls can last longer than it’s stated Duration of “24 hours”. Or are you suggesting that’s not possible either?

[kazaryu]

It says “the effect” remains until removed: that’s the spell effect. It literally says it in what you’re trying to quote. The duration is not over: the spell description states it lasts longer.

It doesn’t compare to those other spells, because they don’t have similar descriptions of how long the effects last.

yes...the effect that the spell had remains...as opposed to other status effects that spells can have that dont. the spell had an effect...just because the effect remained, doesn't mean that the spell is ongoing. those are 2 different things. you're not contradicting me, you're just adding words that aren't there.

the spell doesn't say 'the spell continues until removed' it says 'the effect remains until removed'.

and the reason the other spells i referenced don't have that specific text is because they don't need it. by default damage is permanent until healed. by default things moved via telekinesis stay there until moved. FTS is an exception to the defauly, as compared to spells like hold person, or polymorph, or levitate, or fly, where the specific thing the spell was doing goes away when the spell does.


Yes, it does! Which is what I’ve cited repeatedly. I’ve noticed you’ve failed to back up your position with rules. I have, repeatedly, cited the rules. I’ll do so again here:

The spell at no point references a “status” so I have no idea why you think that word is pertinent here. because we speak english and status is an english word. it doesn't have to be a discreet 5e mechanic to be a useful word in this discussion. 5e uses plain language rules....kind of a lot. we're just using plain language to explain whats going on.

status is a word we're using because its a common gaming term that is used to delineate between 'damage' and 'non-damage' effects that a character might inflict on someone else. and its especially poignant for this discussion...because the rules treat status and damage effects differently in 5e. where most status effects are assumed to go away when whatever was maintaining them does. whereas damage effects...dont. the damage remains after the duration. and the reason we're saying 'status' effects rather than 'conditions' is that it applies to things like polymorph and fly. things that don't inflict 'conditions' per the mechanics.

and yes...we have quoted rules. the spell itself is the only rule you need. why? because its clear enough, by itself, how it works, and in 5e specific rules (like spells) trump general rules (like SA on how to determine what is dispelable). so it doesn't matter what a general rule says. if a specific rule contradicts that general rule in a clear way...then the specific rule wins.

FTS is a clear example of a specific rule both by RaW and by intent.


Petrified isn’t a “status” anyway, it’s a Condition. Here’s the pertinent rule on Conditions:
[quote]
“A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.”

FtS is the effect that imposed the Petrified Condition in this case. The spell description tells us how long it last: until removed.

The spell effect continues until removed.
correct and the spell does specify a duration for the petrification. none of that requires that the spell that created the effect be ongoing so long as the effect is.


If you cast Identify on the Petrified target of FtS, what do you learn? if its after the duration, you learn nothing. there is no spell affecting the petrified target for identify to...identify.



If you cast Detect Magic in the radius of the Petrified target, what do you see? nothing. there's no magic keeping the creature petrified. the spell did its work and then left...the creature remains petrified.




First, no it doesn’t say that. It says: “If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.” It references the time you’re Concentrating on the spell. yes...it references the time you concentrate, relative to the 'entire possible duration'....which is the entire possible duration of the spell. the phrasing doesn't work if its meant to imply 'the entire time you're capable of concentrating on it' its a reference to the spells duration.



At no point does it say the spell is over. It does, however, unambiguously states the effect in the spell description lasts “until the effect is removed”. it doesn't have to explicitly state 'the spell has ended'. the way its phrased imply it, quite clearly. thats not ambiguous phrasing. its naïve phrasing...because it assumes that people reading the book are doing so in a good faith manner, rather than looking for any reason to misinterpret whats written. but its not ambiguous.


If the effect hasn’t been removed, therefore, the effect is still ongoing. yes...but the effect isn't the spell. the only thing you've proven in this discussion is that the effect remains. you've still not demonstrated that the effect must continue to be supported by the presence of the spell.

you just say that because the spell created the effect, the spell must stick around to maintain the effect. but if that were true than any damage done by a damage over time spell would be dispel able. and that is obviously just...not true.

and to be clear, noone is claiming that you actually believe this about DoT spells. but it is direct consequence of your interpretation.

[RSP]

yes...but the effect isn't the spell. the only thing you've proven in this discussion is that the effect remains. you've still not demonstrated that the effect must continue to be supported by the presence of the spell.

you just say that because the spell created the effect, the spell must stick around to maintain the effect. but if that were true than any damage done by a damage over time spell would be dispel able. and that is obviously just...not true.

and to be clear, noone is claiming that you actually believe this about DoT spells. but it is direct consequence of your interpretation.

The spell is its effect. What is Fireball if not the ball of damaging fire effect described in its Spell Description?

Aren’t magical effects, usually created by spells, exactly what DM can target?

What does it mean to be under the effect of a spell, if not being under at least one effect described in a Spells Description?

Can a Spell Description extend a spell past what its Duration states? Yes, as per the quoted rule on Durations, and shown in the FtS Spell Description.

From the PHB:

“What Is a Spell?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression.”

A spell is it’s effect.

“Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”

The entirety of the spell description of FtS is its effect. The spell lasts as long as its effects last. FtS tells us this is until it’s removed.

[Keltest]

The spell is its effect. What is Fireball if not the ball of damaging fire effect described in its Spell Description?

Aren’t magical effects, usually created by spells, exactly what DM can target?

What does it mean to be under the effect of a spell, if not being under at least one effect described in a Spells Description?

Can a Spell Description extend a spell past what its Duration states? Yes, as per the quoted rule on Durations, and shown in the FtS Spell Description.
No, the spell is not it's effect, otherwise inflict wounds would revert the damage at the end of the action, and fireball would be unable to light things on fire.

[RSP]

No, the spell is not it's effect, otherwise inflict wounds would revert the damage at the end of the action, and fireball would be unable to light things on fire.

Yes: you wanting it not to be true, doesn’t make it so. I’ve quoted the PHB we’re it directly states “a spell is a discrete magical effect”. I’ve further quoted that the effect is written in its Spell Description:

“Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”

You saying “no” doesn’t disprove these rules of 5e.

[Keltest]

Yes: you wanting it not to be true, doesn’t make it so. I’ve quoted the PHB we’re it directly states “a spell is a discrete magical effect”. I’ve further quoted that the effect is written in its Spell Description:

“Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”

You saying “no” doesn’t disprove these rules of 5e.

No, basic logic disproves those rules. Explain how inflict wounds, or indeed cure wounds can function under your reading.

[RSP]

No, basic logic disproves those rules. Explain how inflict wounds, or indeed cure wounds can function under your reading.

The logic of 5e is rooted in the rules. But to better answer your question:

“Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.”

This rule covers those spells. FtS isn’t Instantaneous, as previously cited.

[Keltest]

The logic of 5e is rooted in the rules. But to better answer your question:

“Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.”

This rule covers those spells. FtS isn’t Instantaneous, as previously cited.

Nope, doesn't track. If the effect is the spell, then inflict wounds either shoukd reverse the damage instantly due to the spell ending, or the spell persists and dispel magic can heal the wounds.

[RSP]

Nope, doesn't track. If the effect is the spell, then inflict wounds either shoukd reverse the damage instantly due to the spell ending, or the spell persists and dispel magic can heal the wounds.

You saying things that aren’t supported by the rules, is not of particular concern to me.

An instantaneous spell has an effect, then ends. It is, by rule, non-dispelable. Other spell effects, are dispelable, so long as they are still in effect.

You deciding instantaneous spells must now be dispelable, isn’t a thing in terms of the 5e rules (but knock yourself out with it as a home brew rule if you like).

[Keltest]

You saying things that aren’t supported by the rules, is not of particular concern to me.

An instantaneous spell has an effect, then ends. It is, by rule, non-dispelable. Other spell effects, are dispelable, so long as they are still in effect.

You deciding instantaneous spells must now be dispelable, isn’t a thing in terms of the 5e rules (but knock yourself out with it as a home brew rule if you like).

Sure it is, if you accept that the effect of the spell is the spell (which I do not, but you claim to). After all, the effect of an Inflict Wounds spell lasts beyond the instant the spell is cast. By your logic, since the spell is the effect, either the effect (the damage) ends and vanishes the moment the spell ends, or the spell duration extends to the entire lifetime of the effect regardless of what the text says about the duration.

[RSP]

Sure it is, if you accept that the effect of the spell is the spell (which I do not, but you claim to). After all, the effect of an Inflict Wounds spell lasts beyond the instant the spell is cast. By your logic, since the spell is the effect, either the effect (the damage) ends and vanishes the moment the spell ends, or the spell duration extends to the entire lifetime of the effect regardless of what the text says about the duration.

The spell/effects don’t “vanish”: this is something you’re inventing.

By rule, instantaneous spells aren’t dispelable.

Homebrew them however you want, but this is all your invention, not mine.

[Keltest]

The spell/effects don’t “vanish”: this is something you’re inventing.

By rule, instantaneous spells aren’t dispelable.

Homebrew them however you want, but this is all your invention, not mine.

Its just applying your logic to other spells. What do you think happens when a spell's duration finishes, other than the spell ending?

[RSP]

Its just applying your logic to other spells. What do you think happens when a spell's duration finishes, other than the spell ending?

The spell does, indeed end if its duration is up. However, as per the cited rule, the duration isn’t up if the spell description says it extends.

There’s many examples of this: Nystuls, Teleprt Circle, True Polymorph, Forbiddance, all come to mind. All these spell have one thing written in the top part of the spell under “Duration” but then state how that duration can extend in the spell description.

The rule in the PHB under Duration prepares us for this.

I’m not sure why you’re so intent on ignoring it.

[Keltest]

The spell does, indeed end if its duration is up. However, as per the cited rule, the duration isn’t up if the spell description says it extends.

There’s many examples of this: Nystuls, Teleprt Circle, True Polymorph, Forbiddance, all come to mind. All these spell have one thing written in the top part of the spell under “Duration” but then state how that duration can extend in the spell description.

The rule in the PHB under Duration prepares us for this.

I’m not sure why you’re so intent on ignoring it.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just demonstrating that FtS does not extend the duration, because reading it like that makes the system fundamentally dysfunctional, ie its wrong. You cannot say that FtS extends the duration without also saying that Inflict Wounds extends the duration, which is clearly nonsense.

[RSP]

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just demonstrating that FtS does not extend the duration, because reading it like that makes the system fundamentally dysfunctional, ie its wrong. You cannot say that FtS extends the duration without also saying that Inflict Wounds extends the duration, which is clearly nonsense.

FtS, like those other spells, and as per the Duration rules, does indeed have an extended duration. I can very easily say that, as do the rules.

You deciding those rules mean Inflict Wounds is therefore extended, is something YOU are then deciding; not me, not the rules. It’s something you are saying.

I’m lost as to why you think that’s the case, but it’s on you, not me; regardless of how many times you want to say it or try to attribute it to me.

[Keltest]

FtS, like those other spells, and as per the Duration rules, does indeed have an extended duration. I can very easily say that, as do the rules.

You deciding those rules mean Inflict Wounds is therefore extended, is something YOU are then deciding; not me, not the rules. It’s something you are saying.

I’m lost as to why you think that’s the case, but it’s on you, not me; regardless of how many times you want to say it or try to attribute it to me.

Its literally something you said. The spell is the effect (petrification, damage) according to you and if the effect is extended past the stated duration, then the spell is extended. Well the wounds last beyond "instantaneous" so therefore under your logic the spell is extended too.

The fact that its obviously wrong is the point, because it means your claims are wrong and therefore the text does not actually say that the duration of FtS is extended. To say nothing of the absolute travesty of the english language your claim that the duration extends past itself is.

[RSP]

Its literally something you said. The spell is the effect (petrification, damage) according to you and if the effect is extended past the stated duration, then the spell is extended. Well the wounds last beyond "instantaneous" so therefore under your logic the spell is extended too.

The fact that its obviously wrong is the point, because it means your claims are wrong and therefore the text does not actually say that the duration of FtS is extended. To say nothing of the absolute travesty of the english language your claim that the duration extends past itself is.

No. Here’s the rules on damage in 5e:

“Damage and Healing
Injury and the risk of death are constant companions of those who explore the worlds of D&D. The thrust of a sword, a well-placed arrow, or a blast of flame from a fireball spell all have the potential to damage, or even kill, the hardiest of creatures.

Hit Points
Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.
A creature’s current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature’s hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing.
Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature’s capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.

Damage Rolls
Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability specifies the damage it deals. You roll the damage die or dice, add any modifiers, and apply the damage to your target. Magic weapons, special abilities, and other factors can grant a bonus to damage.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll— to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.”

Note that your current issue, how Inflict Wounds works, is covered by what I bolded. IW tells you damage dice to roll. It’s a damage roll. That’s the effect of the spell.

If you’re now wondering “well how long does that damage last?” Here’s the rules for healing in 5e:

“Healing
Unless it results in death, damage isn’t permanent. Even death is reversible through powerful magic. Rest can restore a creature’s hit points (as explained in chapter 8), and magical methods such as a cure wounds spell or a potion of healing can remove damage in an instant.
When a creature receives healing of any kind, hit points regained are added to its current hit points. A creature’s hit points can’t exceed its hit point maximum, so any hit points regained in excess of this number are lost. For example, a druid grants a ranger 8 hit points of healing.
If the ranger has 14 current hit points and has a hit point maximum of 20, the ranger regains 6 hit points from the druid, not 8.
A creature that has died can’t regain hit points until magic such as the revivify spell has restored it to life.“

Once the damage roll is accomplished in IW, the effect (and spell) are over. You then follow the rules on Healing to determine when those HPs return.

I’ve covered the rest of what you consider a “travesty” already with cited 5e rules. If you don’t like those rules, feel free to change them, but you not liking them doesn’t mean they aren’t the rules.

[Keltest]

Nope, you still arent following your own interpretation. The damage is still there, and the damage is the effect, and the effect is the spell, so the spell is still there.

ETA: ill make this easy for you. Which part do you disagree with, and why does that not apply just as much to FtS?

[Parabola]

In this crazy spell effect = spell duration reading of the rules, how long does concentration have to be maintained?

[RSP]

In this crazy spell effect = spell duration reading of the rules, how long does concentration have to be maintained?

What is a spell, if not what is described in the spell description?

The rules say this: “What Is a Spell?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression.”

Concentration is required when the spell says it’s required.

And the duration follows what’s written in the spell as well. I’m not sure why following the rules of spells makes you think it’s “crazy”?


Nope, you still arent following your own interpretation. The damage is still there, and the damage is the effect, and the effect is the spell, so the spell is still there.

ETA: ill make this easy for you. Which part do you disagree with, and why does that not apply just as much to FtS?

I agree with the rules, which I’ve quoted numerous times.

Your view isn’t supported by the rules: saying “nope” isn’t a factual argument.

[Keltest]

I agree with the rules, which I’ve quoted numerous times.

Your view isn’t supported by the rules: saying “nope” isn’t a factual argument.

Your interpretation does not create a coherent ruleset, as I and others have demonstrated. Repeating "well thats the rules" doesnt make it so, especially when you have to ignore the actual text of the spell to make it work.

[RSP]

Your interpretation does not create a coherent ruleset, as I and others have demonstrated. Repeating "well thats the rules" doesnt make it so, especially when you have to ignore the actual text of the spell to make it work.

When was this demonstrated?

What’s not coherent about following the rules?

Here’s TP’s wording:

“If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation lasts until it is dispelled.”

Here’s FtS:

“If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.”

Each references the duration of the spell listed in the top portion of the spell description, then go on to state how that gets extended. The rules for durations explicitly state spells can do this.

FtS states “removed” rather than “dispelled” because the effect of Petrification can be done away with through means other than Dispel Magic.

[Keltest]

When was this demonstrated?

What’s not coherent about following the rules?

Here’s TP’s wording:

“If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation lasts until it is dispelled.”

Here’s FtS:

“If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.”

Each references the duration of the spell listed in the top portion of the spell description, then go on to state how that gets extended. The rules for durations explicitly state spells can do this.

FtS states “removed” rather than “dispelled” because the effect of Petrification can be done away with through means other than Dispel Magic.

Definitionally, a spell cannot last longer than the entire possible duration. Thats not how words work.

[tKUUNK]

If you've posted at least 6 replies on this thread, you may be eligible for a law degree.

RAW aside, I tend to agree you need something other than dispel to remove petrification from Flesh to Stone, because in my opinion / how I choose to flavor my in-game universes, the magic which caused the petrification is usually long gone. All that's left is a mundane statue. Or a creepy ruin full of them.

Do what's most fun for the players though. That's the whole point.

[RSP]

Definitionally, a spell cannot last longer than the entire possible duration. Thats not how words work.

It can if it is then extended, same thing TP is doing. Another way to put it: the entire possible duration of FtS is “Concentration, up to 1 minute”; unless you meet that mark, then it extends to until “the effect is removed”.

The spell description enables a way to extend the duration, past what is otherwise possible.

[Parabola]

The duration of flesh to stone is stated as: concentration, up to 1 minute. And the final clause is: If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.

So the spell itself is an event that lasts up to a minute. During that event the target is forced to roll saving throws and runs the risk of being petrified. If concentration is maintained 'for the entire duration' the effect becomes permanent until removed. The spell itself hasn't changed duration, 'the entire duration' of the spell is still 1 minute.

If the duration of the spell itself extended to permanent the 'entire duration' clause becomes nonsense. You would have to concentrate on the spell forever to make the spell last forever rather than a minute. It makes no sense.

If you think that concentration only needs to be maintained for 1 minute (and that's precisely what the spell states) then the spell is clearly over after that minute because the spell directly tells you that is 'the entire possible duration'.

[RSP]

The duration of flesh to stone is stated as: concentration, up to 1 minute. And the final clause is: If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.

So the spell itself is an event that lasts up to a minute. During that event the target is forced to roll saving throws and runs the risk of being petrified. If concentration is maintained 'for the entire duration' the effect becomes permanent until removed. The spell itself hasn't changed duration, 'the entire duration' of the spell is still 1 minute.

If the duration of the spell itself extended to permanent the 'entire duration' clause becomes nonsense. You would have to concentrate on the spell forever to make the spell last forever rather than a minute. It makes no sense.

If you think that concentration only needs to be maintained for 1 minute (and that's precisely what the spell states) then the spell is clearly over after that minute because the spell directly tells you that is 'the entire possible duration'.

First off, plenty of spells follow that same format: TP, Forbiddance, MC…

They all have a duration, that is then extended if the criteria set forth in the spell description is met. FtS isn’t the only one.

So how does Dispel Magic dispel True Polymorph if the spell has already ended after the 1 hour of Concentration is completed? If the spell didn’t extend to “until dispelled”, then the wording of Dispel Magic prevents it from being used as the agent to dispel TP, because DM only works on spells.

Secondly, the rules for duration specifically call this out as happening: “Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.”



RAW aside, I tend to agree you need something other than dispel to remove petrification from Flesh to Stone, because in my opinion / how I choose to flavor my in-game universes, the magic which caused the petrification is usually long gone. All that's left is a mundane statue. Or a creepy ruin full of them.

Do what's most fun for the players though. That's the whole point.

I agree playing to the table’s fun is the important thing.

I don’t mind that spell Petrification can be undone by the “undo spell magic” spell; if you’re already separating “spell magic” and “non-spell magic” (which the game does).

To me it makes the creature’s ability to Petrified more prominent vs the inferior spell version.

[Keltest]

Well gosh, its almost like they used different language deliberately when they wrote Flesh to Stone in order to specifically counter the idea that the other spells are equivalent.

[RSP]

Well gosh, its almost like they used different language deliberately when they wrote Flesh to Stone in order to specifically counter the idea that the other spells are equivalent.

More like it follows the same set of rules, as previously shown and cited.

Deciding the rules don’t apply to FtS, while applying to every other spell, is just you deciding you don’t want it to apply.

If the time listed in the “Duration” spell header is the extent the spell is active, how can Dispel Magic dispel True Polymorph after its Duration? Or Nystuls?

[Keltest]

More like it follows the same set of rules, as previously shown and cited.

Deciding the rules don’t apply to FtS, while applying to every other spell, is just you deciding you don’t want it to apply.

If the time listed in the “Duration” spell header is the extent the spell is active, how can Dispel Magic dispel True Polymorph after its Duration? Or Nystuls?

So you think the fact that they used different words... means they actually mean the same thing?

As to your questions, because they spell says they can, something absent from the text of Flesh to Stone.

[RSP]

So you think the fact that they used different words... means they actually mean the same thing?

They used some different words, that still mean the same thing in the sentences. Just like Nystuls uses different words than TP, if those words still mean the spell is extended, then, yes, those different words still end up meaning the same thing.



As to your questions, because they spell says they can, something absent from the text of Flesh to Stone.

What do you think the spells are saying? Your entire point is that there’s no longer an active spell for DM to target on FtS.

If the spell is only active until its initial duration is up, then there’s no longer a spell to target on TP or Nystuls, either.

The wording is they’re permanent until “dispelled”, not specifically having “Dispel Magic” cast on it, which aren’t the same words, which seems to be a concern of yours.

If Dispel Magic only affects “active spells” and a spell is over and no longer active once it’s initial duration is up, then you can cast Dispel Magic on a permanent Nystuls all day and it’ll have no effect, because there’s no active spell to affect.

[Keltest]

They used some different words, that still mean the same thing in the sentences. Just like Nystuls uses different words than TP, if those words still mean the spell is extended, then, yes, those different words still end up meaning the same thing.



What do you think the spells are saying? Your entire point is that there’s no longer an active spell for DM to target on FtS.

If the spell is only active until its initial duration is up, then there’s no longer a spell to target on TP or Nystuls, either.

The wording is they’re permanent until “dispelled”, not specifically having “Dispel Magic” cast on it, which aren’t the same words, which seems to be a concern of yours.

If Dispel Magic only affects “active spells” and a spell is over and no longer active once it’s initial duration is up, then you can cast Dispel Magic on a permanent Nystuls all day and it’ll have no effect, because there’s no active spell to affect.

Sure, because the specific text of those spells says that they can be dispelled, even in those circumstances. Flesh to Stone does not.

More specifically, Dispel Magic does not inherently remove any conditions. It can end sources of them, sometimes, but it isn't a restoration spell. Greater Restoration can end the petrified condition regardless of the source, because thats what the spell does.

[RSP]

Sure, because the specific text of those spells says that they can be dispelled, even in those circumstances. Flesh to Stone does not.

No. Those spells says they are permanent until dispelled, but don’t say it has to be Dispel Magic. You’re saying the spell is over, and can’t be affected by DM anymore because the spell already ended.

You can’t have it both ways: either the spell extends per the spell description, or it doesn’t.



More specifically, Dispel Magic does not inherently remove any conditions. It can end sources of them, sometimes, but it isn't a restoration spell. Greater Restoration can end the petrified condition regardless of the source, because thats what the spell does.

DM can end Petrification if it’s from a spell, because that’s what it works against.

[Keltest]

No. Those spells says they are permanent until dispelled, but don’t say it has to be Dispel Magic. You’re saying the spell is over, and can’t be affected by DM anymore because the spell already ended.

You can’t have it both ways: either the spell extends per the spell description, or it doesn’t.



DM can end Petrification if it’s from a spell, because that’s what it works against.

There are other ways besides Dispel Magic to end a spell, such as the Arcana Domain's Spell Breaker feature.

[JNAProductions]

There are other ways besides Dispel Magic to end a spell, such as the Arcana Domain's Spell Breaker feature.

Why would Dispel Magic not work against Flesh To Stone, but Spell Breaker would?

[Keltest]

Why would Dispel Magic not work against Flesh To Stone, but Spell Breaker would?

It wouldnt? But Spell Breaker would work against, say, True Polymorph which explicitly can be dispelled after its normal duration is up.

[JNAProductions]

It wouldnt? But Spell Breaker would work against, say, True Polymorph which explicitly can be dispelled after its normal duration is up.


If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation lasts until it is dispelled.

If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.

There is a slight difference in wording. True Polymorph explicitly calls out dispelling, but Flesh To Stone does not. But they read, in common English, as practically the same.

If 5E was trying to be an airtight, RAW-Is-God system, I could see your point. But it's not. It's designed to be read conversationally, or at least informally. Not computer code.

[Keltest]

True, but "until dispelled" is an actual duration length for the activity of a spell. On top of the description for FtS not making any sense at all if you interpret it that way, since you can't concentrate on it for the full possible duration when doing so extends the duration. That just creates a paradox.

[RSP]

It wouldnt? But Spell Breaker would work against, say, True Polymorph which explicitly can be dispelled after its normal duration is up.

So your stance is that Dispel Magic does not work against TP, Nystuls, Forbiddance, etc; if they’ve become permanent?


True, but "until dispelled" is an actual duration length for the activity of a spell. On top of the description for FtS not making any sense at all if you interpret it that way, since you can't concentrate on it for the full possible duration when doing so extends the duration. That just creates a paradox.

“Until removed” is the new duration, just like “until dispelled”. There’s no paradox there.

[Keltest]

So your stance is that Dispel Magic does not work against TP, Nystuls, Forbiddance, etc; if they’ve become permanent?

No? Thats literally the opposite of what I said.


“Until removed” is the new duration, just like “until dispelled”. There’s no paradox there.

Sure there is. You have to concentrate for the full possible duration, but the duration under your argument is infinite, so you can't reach it.

[JNAProductions]

Are you reading the text as computer code? Because in common talk, the meaning is pretty clear.

[RSP]

No? Thats literally the opposite of what I said.



Sure there is. You have to concentrate for the full possible duration, but the duration under your argument is infinite, so you can't reach it.

No, that’s not how it works. There’s a conditional “if” here. The full possible duration of FtS is “Concentration, up to 1 minute”. However, if that condition is met, the duration changes to “until the effect is removed”. Once the condition is met, there’s a change: trying to put the limits of the duration before the change, onto the limits after the change is ridiculous.

It works the exact same way as True Polymorph, which operates under a duration of “Concentration, up to an hour.” However, here’s that “if” conditional again: “If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation lasts until it is dispelled.” so if the condition is met, the duration changes, just like in FtS.

Saying “entire possible duration” and “full duration” mean the same thing here: you have to fulfill the initial duration requirement. Saying they’re effectively different meanings is like saying there’s a difference between “I’m absolutely certain” and “I’m 100% certain”; they mean the same thing.

How come in your eyes, you don’t need to Concentrate on TP forever? The statement says “if you concentrate on this spell for the full duration”; if that refers to the “until dispelled” duration, then you’d have to continue Concentrating on it forever.

The spell only works as “until dispelled” if, and only if, the duration actually changes from “Concentration, up to an hour” to “until dispelled”.

So either: a) spells with conditional descriptive extended durations in their descriptions actually change the spells original duration stated in the header; or b) the spells duration does not change.

If b) then you still need to concentrate on both TP and FtS indefinitely, as the duration doesn’t actually change.

If a) then the duration of the spell changes, and extends to match the new duration.

So, in your view, does a spell’s duration actually change when a conditional is met in its description, or does it not change?

[Keltest]

Are you reading the text as computer code? Because in common talk, the meaning is pretty clear.

In common talk, one would expect the words to mean what they say, and not what something else says instead. If they had meant it lasts until dispelled, it would say it lasts until dispelled, just like every other spell that lasts until dispelled.

[RSP]

In common talk, one would expect the words to mean what they say, and not what something else says instead. If they had meant it lasts until dispelled, it would say it lasts until dispelled, just like every other spell that lasts until dispelled.

Except it’s not until dispelled, it’s until removed, which allows stuff like magic items and Greater Res to work on it. “Until removed” is a broader application than “until dispelled”.

“In common talk” the conditions are the same and signal a change in the initial duration to the new duration.

[Keltest]

Except it’s not until dispelled, it’s until removed, which allows stuff like magic items and Greater Res to work on it. “Until removed” is a broader application than “until dispelled”.

“In common talk” the conditions are the same and signal a change in the initial duration to the new duration.

Ok, but this is a rules text that is consistent everywhere else, and people still use different words to mean different things in common talk. Besides, magic items and Greater Res would already work on it, because thats what the spells/items do. You don't need a clause for them because their own text already allows them to work even before the effect becomes permanent.

Well, spells anyway. I don't know of any items off hand that restore a petrified creature.

[RSP]

Ok, but this is a rules text that is consistent everywhere else, and people still use different words to mean different things in common talk. Besides, magic items and Greater Res would already work on it, because thats what the spells/items do. You don't need a clause for them because their own text already allows them to work even before the effect becomes permanent.

Well, spells anyway. I don't know of any items off hand that restore a petrified creature.

Not necessarily: it would become a Specific over General question. Is the general rule that Greater Res removes Petrification, while the more specific rule is FtS has to be dispelled? That’s probably how I’d read it in that situation (though I don’t believe that’s what the wording means).

Moreover, your view of it fails regardless:

Your claim, as I understand it, is that the wording “for the entire possible duration” means “as long as the spell could ever last including lasting until the effect is removed.”

However, you’re ignoring the first part of that sentence: “If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration…” Even if your view of “entire possible duration includes until removed” is correct, it would still then, require Concentration, because that sentence says you have to maintain Concentration for “the entire possible duration”.

So once you fail to maintain Concentration, the spell would end anyway.

And you’ve already conceded that the spell can be effected by DM while Concentration is maintained.

[Keltest]

Not necessarily: it would become a Specific over General question. Is the general rule that Greater Res removes Petrification, while the more specific rule is FtS has to be dispelled? That’s probably how I’d read it in that situation (though I don’t believe that’s what the wording means).

Moreover, your view of it fails regardless:

Your claim, as I understand it, is that the wording “for the entire possible duration” means “as long as the spell could ever last including lasting until the effect is removed.”

However, you’re ignoring the first part of that sentence: “If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration…” Even if your view of “entire possible duration includes until removed” is correct, it would still then, require Concentration, because that sentence says you have to maintain Concentration for “the entire possible duration”.

So once you fail to maintain Concentration, the spell would end anyway.

And you’ve already conceded that the spell can be effected by DM while Concentration is maintained.

Specific versus General only applies when two rules are in conflict, and they arent. Greater Restoration ends effects, which includes spell effects, it doesnt just remove the condition itself. So Greater Restoration just wins even if you are currently concentrating on the spell.

As for the duration... I DON'T think it works that way, its just necessary for how YOU think it works, and I'm demonstrating all the logical and practical problems with that interpretation. If you think it sounds stupid, congratulations, you've gotten my point.

[RSP]

As for the duration... I DON'T think it works that way, its just necessary for how YOU think it works, and I'm demonstrating all the logical and practical problems with that interpretation. If you think it sounds stupid, congratulations, you've gotten my point.

No, that’s not how I think it works. And you’re clearly trying to walk back past comments.

Here is how I think it works:

Duration is initially what is stated in the “Duration” in the spell header. The spell description can change the duration, however (as it does in TP, Nystuls, Teleportation Circle, and FtS).

So with those types of spells, spells where the duration can be changed based off the spell description, you get a new duration if the conditions stated in the spell description are met.

If those conditions are met, you get the new duration, which continues the spell. New duration=spell continues until that duration ends. This is because “A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists” (quote taken from the PHB).

So, spells like TC, Nystuls, etc, continue through their new durations, which means they can still be dispelled by DM. If the spell didn’t continue through the new duration, then they couldn’t be dispelled by DM, because DM requires a spell being on the target to work.

So if the duration change means the spell is still on the target, then DM can effect the spell on the target, which includes FtS, which qualifies as having a new duration if the condition is met of concentrating through the entirety of initial duration.

[Keltest]

No, that’s not how I think it works. And you’re clearly trying to walk back past comments.

Here is how I think it works:

Duration is initially what is stated in the “Duration” in the spell header. The spell description can change the duration, however (as it does in TP, Nystuls, Teleportation Circle, and FtS).

So with those types of spells, spells where the duration can be changed based off the spell description, you get a new duration if the conditions stated in the spell description are met.

If those conditions are met, you get the new duration, which continues the spell. New duration=spell continues until that duration ends. This is because “A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists” (quote taken from the PHB).

So, spells like TC, Nystuls, etc, continue through their new durations, which means they can still be dispelled by DM. If the spell didn’t continue through the new duration, then they couldn’t be dispelled by DM, because DM requires a spell being on the target to work.

So if the duration change means the spell is still on the target, then DM can effect the spell on the target, which includes FtS, which qualifies as having a new duration if the condition is met of concentrating through the entirety of initial duration.

But FtS doesn't change the duration, it just inflicts the petrified status indefinitely. If it changed the duration, it would use the same language as everything else that changes the duration.

[RSP]

But FtS doesn't change the duration, it just inflicts the petrified status indefinitely. If it changed the duration, it would use the same language as everything else that changes the duration.

It does change the duration. It does use the same language. It doesn’t use the same condition for ending, because you can remove Petrification by more than just DM, and the condition language reflects that.

If you’re saying that FtS doesn’t use the same exact words as other spells, well, neither do those other spells. None of them use the same exact wording, so it’s ridiculous to use that against FtS:

FtS:
“If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed.”

Nystuls:
“If you cast this spell on the same creature or object every day for 30 days, placing the same effect on it each time, the illusion lasts until it is dispelled.”

TC:
“You can create a permanent teleportation circle by casting this spell in the same location every day for one year.”

TP:
“If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the transformation lasts until it is dispelled.”

Forbiddance:
“If you cast forbiddance every day for 30 days in the same location, the spell lasts until it is dispelled, and the material components are consumed on the last casting.”

Wall of Stone:
“If you maintain your concentration on this spell for its whole duration, the wall becomes permanent and can't be dispelled.”

None of these spells have the same exact wording, yet all do the same thing: change the initial duration of the spell to an extended duration that lasts indefinitely, with conditions.

You could argue WoS doesn’t work the same way as the others because it says it “can’t be dispelled”, but even that supports the duration change of FtS, because FtS doesn’t say it can’t be dispelled. If the rule was the spell duration didn’t change with the new wording, then they wouldn’t need to specifically say WoS can’t be dispelled, and that’s because it wouldn’t be dispellable anyway.

But the durations do change when the conditions are met, hence why WoS specifically needs to state that it’s not dispellable.