Statue

[werk]

The statue cannot walk/fight as normal. Compare to the Iron Body spell, which grants damage reduction. Statue grants hardness, which is something objects have.

Does the changing back and forth always happen for free? In one round, can I: change to flesh, act, move, and change to stone?

I guess it would depend on the limit of free actions your DM imposes. (I only allow 2 free actions per person per round, which is severely limiting, I know.)

Iron Body appears to be a much better spell than statue. Animated objects retain hardness, so I don't think hardness vs. DR resolves the issue.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The statue cannot walk/fight as normal. Compare to the Iron Body spell, which grants damage reduction. Statue grants hardness, which is something objects have.

Yes, indeed, compare it to the iron body spell. See how explicit iron body is and how statue is not so explicit. If, however, you say that the caster becomes an (unanimated) object, that has a lot more consequences than just hardness and lack of movement. Let me try to list some:

1. Hardness - the most obvious, explicitly listed.
2. Hit points - how many inches thick is the caster? He should now have 15*inches hit points. Or, is a very large object and now has hit points for his arms, legs, torso, etc.
3. Death - an object that reaches 0 hit points is destroyed. No longer can the caster by considered "dying."
4. Energy attacks - half damage from electricity and fire, quarter damage from cold
5. Ranged weapons - half damage from ranged weapons
6. Movement - cannot move, though he will never be considered helpless because he is not a creature
7. Immunities - immune to nonlethal and critical damage
8. Type - since he's no longer a creature, he is no longer affected by anything affecting his creature type; e.g. immune to charm person, charm monster, or anything affecting a creature, living or not
9. Vulnerabilities - based on DM fiat, he could be vulnerable to a miner's pick, taking double damage and ignoring hardness
10. Repaired - Could be repaired by anyone with craft (statue)
11. All saving throws now at 2 + 1/2 caster level.
12. Breaking - could be totally destroyed (i.e. killed) with a break DC what? 30?

I still don't understand why you choose to arbitrarily make it unanimated instead of animated. Anyway, the above list is not exhaustive. I'm sure there are some I'm missing. I think that #8 has the biggest impact. Not being a creature, he doesn't even have any stats. No classes. No caster level. What else does it do?

Does the changing back and forth always happen for free? In one round, can I: change to flesh, act, move, and change to stone?

Returning to "statue state" is a free action, it doesn't say what kind of action returning to its "normal state" is. Should the DM make it a free action, though, you can do it as often as the DM will allow since unless otherwise restricted, the number of free actions is limited only by the DM.

 

[Nail]

It's a 7th level spell, so it would make sense for the statue to be able to walk/fight as normal.

Errr?

Thare are quite a few assumptions thrown around here. Let's look at the actual SRD text, shall we?

Statue
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 7
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 hour/level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

A statue spell turns the subject to solid stone, along with any garments and equipment worn or carried. In statue form, the subject gains hardness 8. The subject retains its own hit points.

The subject can see, hear, and smell normally, but it does not need to eat or breathe. Feeling is limited to those sensations that can affect the granite-hard substance of the individual’s body. Chipping is equal to a mere scratch, but breaking off one of the statue’s arms constitutes serious damage.

The subject of a statue spell can return to its normal state, act, and then return instantly to the statue state (a free action) if it so desires, as long as the spell duration is in effect.

The SRD, at any rate, writes out the hardness (cum DR) very plainly. No arguement here.

The last sentence implies that you cannot act while in the "statue state". That's a shade problematic, as Infiniti2000 points out.... Still, it's the only clue we have about whether the caster can move (cast, attack, etc) while in the "statue state".

Given that most people would say statues don't move on their own, I think the burden of proof is on those that say that a statued person does.

 

[Nail]

I still don't understand why you choose to arbitrarily make it unanimated instead of animated..

Nothing "arbitrary" about it! The natural state of a statue is inanimate. It's up to you to prove the spell gives the target mobility, etc.

 

[Nail]

Yes, indeed, compare it to the iron body spell.

Indeed.

If statue allowed you benefits similar (but lesser) to iron body, it seems awfully remiss to have failed to list them.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Nothing "arbitrary" about it! The natural state of a statue is inanimate. It's up to you to prove the spell gives the target mobility, etc.

I point out again, what does an actual statue have to do with anything? If I call the spell Xyz and change the other purely flavor references to statue to Xyz, then what do you get? Exactly my interpretation. Nothing about the spell ever says that the person in fact becomes an statue object. A spell's name (like the name of a feat, special ability or whatever) is never rules text. It's pure flavor. It should help you remember what the spell does, but that's it.

So, the caster is animated (a living creature presumably) before casting the spell. What makes this spell cause him to lose his animation? Remember that he does not become an unmoving statue by the spell description. He only gains hardness 8 from becoming solid stone. If you want, you can say he becomes a moving statue, but that's flavor and however you describe it should not alter the game mechanics. But, your description of the spell is forcing you to attribute game mechanics and that's not correct.

(Please note, if you like the unmoving statue idea and it works for you, go for it. I'm not trying to change your mind and get you to run it differently; I'm just arguing what I feel is the RAW and quite honestly the way I would run it.)

 

[Philip]

Yes, indeed, compare it to the iron body spell. See how explicit iron body is and how statue is not so explicit. If, however, you say that the caster becomes an (unanimated) object, that has a lot more consequences than just hardness and lack of movement. Let me try to list some:

The caster does not become an animated object, it gets the properties of a being made of solid stone.

1. Hardness - as you said, obvious
2. Hit points - it is explicitily stated that the caster retains his own hit points
3. Death - Yes
4. Energy attacks - Yes
5. Ranged weapons - Yes
6. Movement - cannot move (yes), though he will never be considered helpless because he is not a creature (no, he does not change to object)
7. Immunities - immune to nonlethal and critical damage (yes)
8. Type - since he's no longer a creature (once again, no)
9. Vulnerabilities - based on DM fiat, he could be vulnerable to a miner's pick, taking double damage and ignoring hardness (yes)
10. Repaired - Could be repaired by anyone with craft (statue), (yes)
11. All saving throws now at 2 + 1/2 caster level (no)
12. Breaking - could be totally destroyed (i.e. killed) with a break DC what? 30? (no, monly objects)

It is still a creature. It still has awareness, a free will etc. His physiology changes though. The spell states that it turns you into solid stone, not animate stone.

It says that going into statue form and returning is a free action.

The problem with the spell is that I think they almost literally copied the text from the 2nd edition, without giving a lot of thought to the 3rd edition mechanics. Since the spell is rarely used, it does not generate lots of questions.

It never says that you become a statue with all the associated unspoken and undefined limitations that that entails.

Are you serious? There is plenty of evidence in the spell that you become a statue. Next thing you know you will start to argue that the 'ghostly, glowing hand' mentioned in spectral hand is not actually the spectral hand. And that creatures targeted by the sleep spell do not actually sleep because they are in 'a magical slumber', or that the club or quarterstaff affected by a shilelagh spell is not actually a shilelagh because it doesn't say so. Come on now!

 

[Philip]

I point out again, what does an actual statue have to do with anything? If I call the spell Xyz and change the other purely flavor references to statue to Xyz, then what do you get? Exactly my interpretation. Nothing about the spell ever says that the person in fact becomes an statue object. A spell's name (like the name of a feat, special ability or whatever) is never rules text. It's pure flavor. It should help you remember what the spell does, but that's it.

If you believe that, I think casting spells will become almost impossible for you!

Read the spells and see how many of them use the flavor text and other words (which are obvious to most people) to refer to the same entity, be it a simulacrum or illusory duplicate, sepia snake or sigil, dwelling or mansion (Mordenkainen's), plane of force or sword (Mordenkainen's), mount or steed, pebble or stone (magic stone) solid stone or statue, etc. etc.

Really, come up with some interesting arguments, but not this nonsense you clearly don't believe yourself but are only putting out for the sake of argument.

 

[Infiniti2000]

2. Hit points - it is explicitily stated that the caster retains his own hit points

Ah, yes. Missed that.

6. Movement - cannot move (yes), though he will never be considered helpless because he is not a creature (no, he does not change to object)
8. Type - since he's no longer a creature (once again, no)
11. All saving throws now at 2 + 1/2 caster level (no)
12. Breaking - could be totally destroyed (i.e. killed) with a break DC what? 30? (no, monly objects)

So . . . he becomes a statue, but not an object? You do realize, of course, that if he's not an object and you are in fact agreeing with me and that pretty much everything you said 'yes' to is wrong and you are contradicting yourself? If he's not object, you can't use the Object rules.

Are you serious? There is plenty of evidence in the spell that you become a statue. Next thing you know you will start to argue that the 'ghostly, glowing hand' mentioned in spectral hand is not actually the spectral hand. And that creatures targeted by the sleep spell do not actually sleep because they are in 'a magical slumber', or that the club or quarterstaff affected by a shilelagh spell is not actually a shilelagh because it doesn't say so. Come on now!

Of course I'm serious. I'm also serious when I say you are totally contradicting yourself. You're using all the rules for objects and then coming out and saying he's not an object. How can you say that he's a statue and not an object? That makes no sense whatsoever. Don't get sidetracked with other examples at the moment, though. Suffice it to say that the spell descriptions say what the spells do, not the name. Nothing about this spell polymorphs the caster into an object and certainly not a statue-that-is-somehow-not-an-object-but-uses-all-the-object-rules.

PS My sarcasm is in a teasing, light-hearted manner. Not intended to offend.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Read the spells and see how many of them use the flavor text and other words (which are obvious to most people) to refer to the same entity, be it a simulacrum or illusory duplicate, sepia snake or sigil, dwelling or mansion (Mordenkainen's), plane of force or sword (Mordenkainen's), mount or steed, pebble or stone (magic stone) solid stone or statue, etc. etc.

When they happen to mention a word in the spell name, it's clear. For instance, mount: "You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount." They could have titled the spell "Philip's Bumpy Ride" and none of those three words should have any bearing whatsoever on the game mechanics of the spell.

Really, come up with some interesting arguments, but not this nonsense you clearly don't believe yourself but are only putting out for the sake of argument.

I am certainly not putting it out for the sake of argument, it's not nonsense, and you should really think about what you are saying before you say it.