Question on Transmute Rock

[Guy Lombard-O]

So I was picking through some 5th level spells for a level up, and I read through Transmute Rock. Specifically, the rock to mud section. And I got to wondering about the descriptions of casting it on the ground as opposed to casting it on the ceiling. And a question formed in my mind about probable scenarios and uses of the spell.

Since this spell has an area of effect of a 40' cube, if you're in a typical dungeon crawl scenario in a stone labyrinth or cave, and the ceiling is only 15' or 20' tall, is there anything stopping the caster from including both the ground and the ceiling within the cube's area, and thus getting both the ground and ceiling effects? For instance, starting the cube 10' into the floor, and going up from there so that 10' or 15' of the ceiling is also included in the cube (assuming that both are stone or rock)? Is 10-15' of ceiling enough to get the spell's ceiling effect? Is 10' of ground mud enough to get the ground effect?

Haven't used this spell myself, or even seen it used in a game. But this doubled-duty effects seems to me like it'd make sense if the circumstances line up correctly. So, what's the Playground's experience or opinion about such scenarios?

[Abracadangit]

So I was picking through some 5th level spells for a level up, and I read through Transmute Rock. Specifically, the rock to mud section. And I got to wondering about the descriptions of casting it on the ground as opposed to casting it on the ceiling. And a question formed in my mind about probable scenarios and uses of the spell.

Since this spell has an area of effect of a 40' cube, if you're in a typical dungeon crawl scenario in a stone labyrinth or cave, and the ceiling is only 15' or 20' tall, is there anything stopping the caster from including both the ground and the ceiling within the cube's area, and thus getting both the ground and ceiling effects? For instance, starting the cube 10' into the floor, and going up from there so that 10' or 15' of the ceiling is also included in the cube (assuming that both are stone or rock)? Is 10-15' of ceiling enough to get the spell's ceiling effect? Is 10' of ground mud enough to get the ground effect?

Haven't used this spell myself, or even seen it used in a game. But this doubled-duty effects seems to me like it'd make sense if the circumstances line up correctly. So, what's the Playground's experience or opinion about such scenarios?

I'D certainly allow it, it's awfully clever.

But I could see a less agreeable DM zero in on the phrase: "...and choose one of the following effects." I know -- the immediate counterpoint is that the spell description is organized in such a way that "Transmute Rock to Mud" and "Transmute Mud to Rock" are the two choices to make, so your example would fall neatly under a single casting. But a different DM might argue that the "ground" and "ceiling" effects are distinct "following effects" if they don't like the idea of you skooshing their encounter. As always, it's up to them.

[Christew]

I'D certainly allow it, it's awfully clever.

But I could see a less agreeable DM zero in on the phrase: "...and choose one of the following effects." I know -- the immediate counterpoint is that the spell description is organized in such a way that "Transmute Rock to Mud" and "Transmute Mud to Rock" are the two choices to make, so your example would fall neatly under a single casting. But a different DM might argue that the "ground" and "ceiling" effects are distinct "following effects" if they don't like the idea of you skooshing their encounter. As always, it's up to them.

I'd actually argue that the sticking point isn't the "one of the following effects" language -- because I think that's referring to the mud-rock and rock-mud bullets. Where you might have difficulty is the "an area" language. As Abracadangit points out, the description seems to imply that ground and ceiling are two distinct areas.

I would likewise allow it, because:
1) I am not the overly pedantic DM theorized above,
2) it seems clever,
3) it isn't overpowered for a 5th level slot, and
4) a theoretical stone passage where floor/walls/ceiling (i.e. one contiguous area) all fit in the area of effect makes logical sense to me.

[sithlordnergal]

I believe you could target both the floor and ceiling if they were both in the area of the spell. That said, I'd avoid casting it in such a dungeon as it will collapse the ceiling, which means that room is essentially closed off. You won't really be able to enter it, unless you're willing to swim/dig through a ton of mud. Because if it does target the ceiling, then its also targeting any rock above the ceiling as well.

[greenstone]

is there anything stopping the caster from including both the ground and the ceiling within the cube's area,

The spell says "You choose an area of stone or mud that you can see that fits within a 40-foot cube and is within range,…" (emphasis mine) so you can't pick the floor and the ceiling. You have to pick one area.

[JNAProductions]

The spell says "You choose an area of stone or mud that you can see that fits within a 40-foot cube and is within range,…" (emphasis mine) so you can't pick the floor and the ceiling. You have to pick one area.

Counterpoint-it's one area. The middle of the area is devoid of stone/mud, but it still fits all within the area of the spell.

[OvisCaedo]

Oh, I was expecting a question about what on earth is supposed to HAPPEN with the ceiling mud and lasting effects, since the spell text gives pretty much... zero guidance about it. Is the mud just supposed to spread out and have no further effect? Is the massive pouring of mud ONTO the ground supposed to obviously cause the ground effects over some area? Does the mud nonsensibly vanish because the spell says nothing about what happens AFTER the damage and "spells only do what they say they do"? i feel like it must do SOMETHING, since the bludgeoning damage alone is pretty sad for the spell level.

it's usually illusion spells that tend to require DM adjudication for resolving their basic, non-creative effects. This one stands out to me as being very unhelpful in the text given, despite a few printings. Maybe nobody's cared or questioned it enough for errata to ever be bothered with.

[Christew]

I believe you could target both the floor and ceiling if they were both in the area of the spell. That said, I'd avoid casting it in such a dungeon as it will collapse the ceiling, which means that room is essentially closed off. You won't really be able to enter it, unless you're willing to swim/dig through a ton of mud. Because if it does target the ceiling, then its also targeting any rock above the ceiling as well.

Oh, I assumed the intent WAS to make it impassable. Yeah, don't do this if you want to use that passage at all.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The spell says "You choose an area of stone or mud that you can see that fits within a 40-foot cube and is within range,…" (emphasis mine) so you can't pick the floor and the ceiling. You have to pick one area.

"I pick the floor and 40ft down"

[Christew]

I think the real answer is to:
1) transmute a 40 foot cube of rock to mud,
2) retire from adventuring and use dispel magic and your absurd supply of mud (duration until dispelled) to start a quik-crete business
3) profit

[Thunderous Mojo]

Counterpoint-it's one area. The middle of the area is devoid of stone/mud, but it still fits all within the area of the spell.

Nice Avatar!

I agree. Transmute Rock is a 40' cube, after all.

The great aspect about this scenario is the Restrained condition from being stuck in the muddy floor provides Disadvantage on the Dexterity Saving Throw from the mud failing from the ceiling. 🍻

As an aside, in AD&D the spells Transmute Rock to Mud and Flesh to Stone were reversible.

With Multiple castings of each spell one could:
****Turn a creature to Stone ->then Turn the Statue to Mud-> then Turn the Mud to Stone-> and then Turn the Stone to Flesh.****

We called it "Chunky Salsa".

If a DM rules that the Stone Statue created by a Flesh to Stone spell counts as "nonmagical rock" then one could theoretically use both a completely successful Flesh to Stone spell and a Transmute Rock spell to hideous effect, in 5e.

[JackPhoenix]

If a DM rules that the Stone Statue created by a Flesh to Stone spell counts as "nonmagical rock" then one could theoretically use both a completely successful Flesh to Stone spell and a Transmute Rock spell to hideous effect, in 5e.

A target of Flesh to Stone is a creature under the effect of a spell. It is magical.

[Reach Weapon]

The spell says "You choose an area of stone or mud that you can see that fits within a 40-foot cube and is within range,…" (emphasis mine) so you can't pick the floor and the ceiling. You have to pick one area.

What happens if there is a void (perhaps a lower or higher cavern or tunnel) in the spell's AoE under your interpretation? Does whatever happens change if it's not an air gap, but perhaps some other section of not-non-magical stone or mud?

It seems to me that floor or ceiling (walls firmly excluded) is either an exceedingly caster-referential and arbitrary limitation, or something that makes the spell virtually unusable.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A target of Flesh to Stone is a creature under the effect of a spell. It is magical.

During the minute of Concentration, I would agree.
Flesh to Stone also has this bit:

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

I think it is eminently reasonable for a DM to rule that while the Statue from Flesh to Stone was created by Magic, after the above condition is met, the stone itself is no longer magical.

Similar to Wall of Stone, once the trigger is met, the Flesh to Stone spell essentially converts from a duration of Concentration to instead become an Instantaneous effect.

I think a DM would be on solid footing to state a Dispel Magic could not dispel a Flesh to Stone effect that no longer requires Concentration....only a Greater Restoration or Wish spell will reverse the spell now.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I believe you could target both the floor and ceiling if they were both in the area of the spell. That said, I'd avoid casting it in such a dungeon as it will collapse the ceiling, which means that room is essentially closed off. You won't really be able to enter it, unless you're willing to swim/dig through a ton of mud. Because if it does target the ceiling, then its also targeting any rock above the ceiling as well.

Well, that's certainly a good point.

But now I'm picturing a stone bridge over a deep chasm...is that a "floor". What effect does turning a 40' length of a bridge into collapsible mud going to have? Just turn the bridge into a sticky mess, but one that magically holds together? Or do you get a "Thou. Shall. Not. Pass!" moment, as 40' of mud plummet into the abyss from your "liquify bridge" spell?

This spell definitely seems cool. But I could see it needing a fair amount of DM interpretation, depending upon the situation.

[JackPhoenix]

During the minute of Concentration, I would agree.
Flesh to Stone also has this bit:

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

I think it is eminently reasonable for a DM to rule that while the Statue from Flesh to Stone was created by Magic, after the above condition is met, the stone itself is no longer magical.

Similar to Wall of Stone, once the trigger is met, the Flesh to Stone spell essentially converts from a duration of Concentration to instead become an Instantaneous effect.

I think a DM would be on solid footing to state a Dispel Magic could not dispel a Flesh to Stone effect that no longer requires Concentration....only a Greater Restoration or Wish spell will reverse the spell now.

The statue is still a creature with petrified condition originating from a spell.

Difference with Wall of Stone is that not only is the wall (somehow) nonmagical, the spell explicitly says that once the duration is permanent, it can't be dispeled. Flesh to Stone lacks any such language.

The bolded part of your claim doesn't follow, permanent duration is not the same thing as instantaneous duration, and fits the description better: instantaneous effect wouldn't be removable.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Jack, in post #11, I allowed for DM's that would also rule as you do....I don't have any real issue with the ruling you have stated.

The larger question I have is:
What does not having Transmute Rock work on a Petrified Stone to Flesh victim accomplish?

Such a ruling doesn't preserve balance; using Transmute Rock and Flesh to Stone is a combo that is akin to a Mortal Kombat FATALITY Animation.

Ultimately, breaking the head off a Petrified victim leaves one just as dead as someone whom was Petrified and had someone use Transmute Rock on them to make Chunky Salsa.

[Segev]

Jack, in post #11, I allowed for DM's that would also rule as you do....I don't have any real issue with the ruling you have stated.

The larger question I have is:
What does not having Transmute Rock work on a Petrified Stone to Flesh victim accomplish?

Such a ruling doesn't preserve balance; using Transmute Rock and Flesh to Stone is a combo that is akin to a Mortal Kombat FATALITY Animation.

Ultimately, breaking the head off a Petrified victim leaves one just as dead as someone whom was Petrified and had someone use Transmute Rock on them to make Chunky Salsa.

I could see a DM determined not to let petrification lead to "easy" fatality make you actually take the time and attacks and effort to deal hp damage to the statue and whittle through its hp before you could successfully break its head off. A particularly determined DM might even make you check to see if you're damaging your weapons as you do so.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A medium size Resilient item has an average of 18 HP, based off the DMG, (4d8 Hit Dice).

Damage Reduction and Damage Threshold rules can be applied to the statue. Yet, even with all of this...if the party has ample time, that time can be used to chip away the stone, and destroy the statue.

If a Permanent Flesh to Stone Statue is considered magical Stone, it is not vulnerable to a Shatter spell....a DM might even rule the Disintegrate spell could not work against this type of statuary.

Mauls, Hammers, and Chisels might be the party's only recourse to demolish the Flesh to Stone statue.

The Caryatid Column were introduced in 1e's Fiend Folio, so there is historical precedent for weapons and armor being damaged when used against particular foes.

5e, yet, doesn't have a Fallout 4 style durability system, and, generally, only a few specific circumstances or creatures (Rust Monsters and Green Slime, or the lava of Mount Doom) result in weapons being damaged through use.

Typically, attacking an Earth Elemental or an Iron Golem doesn't result in one's Greatsword becoming blunted, does it?

So my question again is what purpose is being serviced by a DM adding these game elements into the scenario?

Adding Ad Hoc wear and tear penalties to the Adventuring Party's equipment after being used on NPC is turned permanently to stone, would cause me, as a player, to Arch an eyebrow, at the very least.

If a DM wants to use Deus Machina to save a particular NPC from their fate...there is no compelling reason to be subtle. Indeed the whole point of Deus Machina is that it is not subtle.

[Segev]

A medium size Resilient item has an average of 18 HP, based off the DMG, (4d8 Hit Dice).

Damage Reduction and Damage Threshold rules can be applied to the statue. Yet, even with all of this...if the party has ample time, that time can be used to chip away the stone, and destroy the statue.

If a Permanent Flesh to Stone Statue is considered magical Stone, it is not vulnerable to a Shatter spell....a DM might even rule the Disintegrate spell could not work against this type of statuary.

Mauls, Hammers, and Chisels might be the party's only recourse to demolish the Flesh to Stone statue.

The Caryatid Column were introduced in 1e's Fiend Folio, so there is historical precedent for weapons and armor being damaged when used against particular foes.

5e, yet, doesn't have a Fallout 4 style durability system, and, generally, only a few specific circumstances or creatures (Rust Monsters and Green Slime, or the lava of Mount Doom) result in weapons being damaged through use.

Typically, attacking an Earth Elemental or an Iron Golem doesn't result in one's Greatsword becoming blunted, does it?

So my question again is what purpose is being serviced by a DM adding these game elements into the scenario?

Adding Ad Hoc wear and tear penalties to the Adventuring Party's equipment after being used on NPC is turned permanently to stone, would cause me, as a player, to Arch an eyebrow, at the very least.

If a DM wants to use Deus Machina to save a particular NPC from their fate...there is no compelling reason to be subtle. Indeed the whole point of Deus Machina is that it is not subtle.

I disagree with none of this. I am simply pointing out that a DM who refuses to allow transmute rock to mud to permanently mangle a petrified foe is likely to have other reasons (or "reasons," depending on how reasonable you think they really are) why the statue can't be trivially destroyed by other means, too.

[JackPhoenix]

A medium size Resilient item has an average of 18 HP, based off the DMG, (4d8 Hit Dice).

Irrelevant, in this specific case, because the statue is a creature with the petrified condition, not an object.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Irrelevant, in this specific case, because the statue is a creature with the petrified condition, not an object.

Yes, but how many Hit Points of damage does it take to chop the head off of a Petrified Humanoid? How many for an Arm?

Which again prompts my question...what is the value in making the party jump through a bunch of hoops when the outcome is certain?

The BBEG being turned to stone by the PC's is a Q.E.D. scenario if the Party intends to kill the foe.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes, but how many Hit Points of damage does it take to chop the head off of a Petrified Humanoid? How many for an Arm?

Generally, twice as much as it takes to chop off a head or an arm of non-petrified humanoid, thanks to the resistance to all damage

Which again prompts my question...what is the value in making the party jump through a bunch of hoops when the outcome is certain?

The BBEG being turned to stone by the PC's is a Q.E.D. scenario if the Party intends to kill the foe.

Sure, if we're talking out of combat, it's irrelevant. It's not irrelevant if you try to do it while there are still active combatants who could stop you or break your concentration.