Statue

[Infiniti2000]

Infiniti, what do you want me to say? ... To me it seems you are going into one logical fallacy after another, but that's not what I would like to discuss here, because I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye on that.

What I want you to say is to make some response that would indicate you understand my posts. Unfortunately, with comments like "one logical fallacy after another" it seems like you don't. So, enough on this topic.

 

[Murrdox]

No, I'm seeing it just fine, but I think you should not engage in a rules discussion with comments like "seems to be" and "kind of assumes." If you cannot understand the rules, don't discuss them. And, please refrain from the not-so-veiled insults with "simple" and "smart enough". No one asked you to join this discussion, so if you can't/won't follow it and understand what we are talking about, don't step in just to insult someone you don't know.

You know what? I didn't personally attack you, and I didn't choose my words in an attempt to insult you, and I resent your implication. I also resent your tone and attitude.

Furthermore, the spell is written BADLY. I use words like "Seems to be" and "Probably" and such in this instance because the effects of the spell are not clearly spelled out. If you think they ARE and that you can make 100% correct and logical deductions based on them, then be my guest and do so. So far you haven't, and this spell wouldn't be the topic of a rules debate if there wasn't some ambiguity.

Now, I'm still not insulting you, but don't attempt to talk to me like I'm a child again. Go ahead and disagree with my points if you want to, and criticize my analysis, but end it there, and I'll give you the same amount of respect.

 

[Nail]

The default is that the caster can move.

Unless he's made of stone?

Let's try this another way: Cast Flesh to Stone on subject. Can that subject move?

Note that the Flesh to Stone spell description uses the word "statue". That, too, is suggestive.

And then, with this interpretation, you'd agree that the wizard cannot do anything at all until he decides to be in statue form anymore? For instance, he couldn't fly or make a non-reactive spot check, etc.?

The spell text says: "The subject can see, hear, and smell normally,..."

 

[anon]

In support, of Infiniti2k the text of Flesh to Stone says "The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue." In this case the authors were clear to spell out explicitly that the statue was inert, while in Statue there is no such mention...

Personally I always interpretted the spell to mean that you were turned into a non-moving statue, though as mentioned a few times above, this does make the spell rather weak.

 

[Lazerel]

Interesting thread, like many now descending somewhat into intolerance.

There is something that has been overlooked here I feel, and that is a simple comparison with other spells. The statue spells seems to require the actual ability to change to and from statue form to be important enough to be stated.

"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."

This implies that the (sorry can't get out of italics ) recipient will in some way WANT to change out of statue form for some reason. Compare this to stoneskin or ironskin, where there is NO relevant line or abiliity.

Now there are two ways to view this, as has been earlier pointed out. The first is from a real world (non-D&D) perspective where obviously you want to stop being a statue because statues cannot do anything (movement related at least), or we can look at it from a fantasy (D&D) perspective. In a D&D perspective there aren't going to be a whole lot of reasons why that person is going to NOT want that 8 hardness helping them so there must be another reason (unlikely to be for appearances sake as the change into/outof statue form effect implies (sorry, States) a one round duration), that reason is because even in D&D statues cannot normally move.

This spell doesn't suck. To all intents and purposes you are a statue and the ability to be totally motionless and INANIMATE can actually have its own rewards, ie: you do not seem like a tasty snack or a threat to most creatures. You do not make any noise and would hide VERY well from any creature using tremor sense, you make no smell for scent, nevermind side advantages of energy resistance (though shatter could presumable hurt).

 

[Teydyn]

I think you can NOT move while being a statue while affected by this spell.

Off-Topic:

Ironically, Philip means "lover of horses".

"Friend of horses" is a better translation, without the itchy 2nd meaning.

I thought that was "Equus" ...

Thats latin for horse.

Philip from the greek philipos.
->
phil + ipos (the h doesnt exist as own letter in old-greek, its shown by a funky sign above the "i").
->
philos = friend
hipos = horse
->
horse friend

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I thought that was "Equus" ...

Thats latin for horse.

Someone who's not a friend of the theater, I see ...

 

[Bad Paper]

Good Heavens! I did not expect this to be such a contentious thread! I was just, you know, poking around at the edges of the rules. I think the giveaway sentence in the description of the spell is this:

Chipping is equal to a mere scratch, but breaking off one of the statue’s arms constitutes serious damage.

If the caster were an animate statue, then the appearance of this sentence would be totally absurd.

Other arguments against the animated-form camp (sorry, I2k) are:
1) Statue's duration (1 hr/level), compared to Iron Body, a higher-level spell, which is 1 min/level.
2) Assuming that the name of the spell is not simply flavor, you would think that the caster would get some kind of Freeze ability like the gargoyle. Methinks the spell grants that by default, namely, by freezing you until you choose to revert. If the name were flavor, they would have named it something else, like Greater Stoneskin.

Assuming, then, that this spell does not grant the ability to physically act while in statue form, is it reasonable for the caster to be able to revert to flesh, get a full round, and then change to stone? Is the form-switching really free, or is it swift, or even immediate?

If someone tried to bull-rush your statue off a cliff, could you immediately revert to flesh to collect on your Attack of Opportunity?

 

[Nail]

Good Heavens! I did not expect this to be such a contentious thread!

I comparison to other "contentious" threads, this one seems kinda short.....

Assuming, then, that this spell does not grant the ability to physically act while in statue form, is it reasonable for the caster to be able to revert to flesh, get a full round, and then change to stone? Is the form-switching really free, or is it swift, or even immediate?

The line:
"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."
seems to imply it is a free action to switch states, in eiether direction. Besides, it makes for some funny play:

(PC walks along statue filled hallway, gets poked, turns to look, sees nothing.....turns to continue, then gets poked again.....)

Of any of the things that Infiniti2000 has said here, the one thing I do agree with is: "That would quite frankly suck as a spell." The spell, at 7th level, does kinda suck.

 

[Nail]

I thought I'd add this in:

A few sessions ago, we (I'm playing, not DMing) were exploring a long-dead wizard's storehouse. We openned one door to find a room with a pedestal in its center, surrounded by 5 stone statues. The stautes were "extrodinarily well carved", depicting 5 well-armored warriors with dragon-emblazoned full plate.

From the doorway we tried a battery of tests, including detect magic, detect evil, see invisible, etc. The only thing magical was a ring lieing atop the pedestal.

Of course, we were not so easily taken in. We knew that as soon as we got into the room and made a grab for the ring, the stautes would animate and attack. They were probably golems, right? ......you can see where this is going. The statues turned out to be real warriors with continuous statue spells on them. (Ftr 12's, it turned out, with Nondetection or some such running as well.)

Was that fact interesting? Sure! But did it slow us down in the eventual slaughter of the poor warriors? Nope. In fact, I can't really tell you how that spell helped them out like other 7th level spells might. Essentially they could turn into statues after they had finished their attack, but before we had our turns. Of course, that meant their ACs were abyssmal (no movement, so Dex 0), so the little bit of DR was useless. Three rounds later we were done with the statue-warriors, little the worse for wear.

Statue is a lame spell.