Break Enchantment question....

[Ruvion]

In the 3.5e PHB (the spells section page 207) under break enchantment, it says it can "reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone."
...it goes on to say that if it is a spell not dispellable by dispel magic then it does not work if it's a spell higher than 5th level...and flesh to stone just so happens to be a 6th level spell.
...another confounding matter is the fact that stone to flesh is a 6th level spell that has a chance of killing a previously petrified subject when bringing him back...when compared to the 5th level break enchantment that has no such fatal chance of killing the target you sort of wonder if the R&D slipped up on the written portion of the break enchantment spell.
I tend to see it as an error on the grounds that break enchantment cannot get rid of flesh to stone...but wondering if there are differing opinions on this issue?!

 

[dcollins]

Same rules in 3.0 and 3.5. Read carefully: what it says is "If the spell is one that, as a special property, cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower."

By that they mean the spell text description must explicitly say "unaffected by dispel magic", such as wall of force or something. "Instananeous" spells do not count as having any "special property". Break enchantment certainly counters flesh to stone.


As a separate issue, you have a good point about one spell having a death chance and the other not, that is a glitch that I hadn't noticed before. An argument could be made that the better restorative is clerical, while the more risky one sorcerous, but it does seem glitchy to me.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Except that with dispel magic: "The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled..."

The exception lies in the text of the spell where break enchantment says it can dispel an effect such as flesh to stone. I don't think this statement is in error and that break can indeed counter flesh to stone, though having it do so rather makes stone to flesh an irrellevant spell. Personally, I'd have the % chance of death for break enchantment and only the true counter (stone to flesh) would be able to reverse the effects without harm.

 

[tarchon]

As a separate issue, you have a good point about one spell having a death chance and the other not, that is a glitch that I hadn't noticed before. An argument could be made that the better restorative is clerical, while the more risky one sorcerous, but it does seem glitchy to me.

I always assumed that the difference was because one was a transmutation and the other was an abjuration.

 

[Arksorn]

One would be forced to use stone to flesh rather than break enchantment in the case of restoring a creature turned to stone by a basilisk or medusa.

 

[dcollins]

I think that would be debatable. I'm not seeing language that directly limits it to just spells.

 

[Ruvion]

I think my question still stands...
Dispel magic is unable to dispel instantaneous effects...I would extrapolate that fact and go out on a limb and say that break enchantment can only get rid of instantaneous (enchanment, transmutation, and curse) effects of 5th levels and lower and all magical enchanment, et al. effects that dispel magic can get rid of.
Thus since flesh to stone is a 6th level transmutation with instantaneous duration, it seems to fall out of the break enchantment's area of influence despite the fact that the said spell is specifically mentioned in the break enchantment entry.
Although break enchantment will turn back petrified creature back to their original state, it cannot seem to do so when it is enacted through the flesh to stone spell.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Cockatrice CR3
Basilisk CR 5
Medusa CR 7
Gorgon CR 8

So yeah, in our campaign Break Enchantment works against Petrification (9).

Even considering making it work against other supernatural effects of 5th or lower (level equivalent). (Likely stretched far enough that it would be more house rule territory).

Without it you're left with Stone to Flesh (possibly making petrification save or die-11), or .....? Limited Wish (13), Wish (17), Miracle (17), Polymorph Any Object (15).

If they can recover from death at 9th, needing to be 9th to recover from petrification seems fair. Of course, many campaigns don't allow you to recover from death so ymmv. Since Break Enchantment is a CL check it's not automatic there is still a place for Stone to Flesh which is automatic but with a substantial risk.

 

[Ruvion]

Of course break enchantment will work against normal petrification (that is any petrifiction attack that is a supernatural ability)...but I'm arguing that it may not work when used on victims of flesh to stone spell due to level restriction.

Cockatrice CR3
Basilisk CR 5
Medusa CR 7
Gorgon CR 8

So yeah, in our campaign Break Enchantment works against Petrification (9).

Even considering making it work against other supernatural effects of 5th or lower (level equivalent). (Likely stretched far enough that it would be more house rule territory).

Without it you're left with Stone to Flesh (possibly making petrification save or die-11), or .....? Limited Wish (13), Wish (17), Miracle (17), Polymorph Any Object (15).

If they can recover from death at 9th, needing to be 9th to recover from petrification seems fair. Of course, many campaigns don't allow you to recover from death so ymmv. Since Break Enchantment is a CL check it's not automatic there is still a place for Stone to Flesh which is automatic but with a substantial risk.

 

[dcollins]

Dispel magic is unable to dispel instantaneous effects...I would extrapolate that fact and go out on a limb and say that break enchantment can only get rid of instantaneous (enchanment, transmutation, and curse) effects of 5th levels and lower and all magical enchanment, et al. effects that dispel magic can get rid of.

No, that is incorrect. See post #2 in this thread again. It's not true that it only affects spells that "dispel magic can get rid of". It affects spells that lack a "special property" that dispel can't effect them.

Instantaneous is not a special property.