D&D 5E A Flesh to Stone Creature is Not an Object?

[jaelis]

It makes sense that weapons/monsters that deal double damage to objects (siege monsters) make short work of petrified statues.

I could go either way on that one. It does make sense, but I’m also comfortable saying a petrified creature retains the luck/divine favor/plot armor that hp represent, and it doesn’t bother me to let those work against object-destroyers.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

It's an interesting take. After all, Greater Restoration will rid you of the condition and you don't Greater Restore an object. Hmmm

 

[jaelis]

It's an interesting take. After all, Greater Restoration will rid you of the condition and you don't Greater Restore an object. Hmmm

Right. You either treat it as a creature with some peculiar characteristics, or an object with some peculiar characteristics. Probably the sensible approach in play is to treat it as a creature in some ways and an object in others, depending on the situation.

For instance, in actual play would you let these spells work? My answers..
cure wounds: Probably no
stone shape: Probably no
polymorph: Probably yes
modify memory: Probably yes
vampiric touch: Probably no

That's just based on my gut response, not rules analysis.

 

[guachi]

Jaelis best me to it. It's a creature when it needs to be and an object when it needs to be. Largely because it's stone we have to imagine how a stone object would react in many situations. But for purposes of spells, for example, we treat it as a creature for targeting purposes.

 

[Gradine]

Jaelis best me to it. It's a creature when it needs to be and an object when it needs to be. Largely because it's stone we have to imagine how a stone object would react in many situations. But for purposes of spells, for example, we treat it as a creature for targeting purposes.

It's almost like this is an edition centered around individual rulings, as opposed to hard-and-fast rules.

Rulings not rules... where have I heard that before...

 

[Nevvur]

Random question occurred to me as a I read this thread: can you use telepathy to communicate with a petrified person?

 

[CapnZapp]

Random question occurred to me as a I read this thread: can you use telepathy to communicate with a petrified person?

If you say so, then yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[Nevvur]

If you say so, then yes. Otherwise, no.

I know how I would rule, I was asking others.

 

[Rossbert]

I think the most interesting part of petrified characters is the no longer aging bit. One could read it as the creature is literally frozen in time (works especially for non-stone petrifications, like Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets). Why do most things not work? Time is not passing for the affected creature. It is a body and soul trapped in an eternal moment. If made of stone I would allow spells that affect stone to function but it makes sense it is not an object, it still has a soul, and a consciousness, they are just stuck and unable to progress in any way on their own.

By extension it raises questions of what spells have interesting interactions with earth elementals.

 

[jaelis]

Random question occurred to me as a I read this thread: can you use telepathy to communicate with a petrified person?

I'd say no. The creature is inanimate and unaware of its surroundings. That sounds the same as unconscious. Plus having it be conscious in that situation would be pretty torturous.