Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prospero63" data-source="post: 4577499" data-attributes="member: 16014">If that is what the results are, then that's what the results are, but I'm not saying that. I explained how the spell works per the SRD citing the examples from the appropriate parts of the SRD.  The SRD makes no reference to flesh to stone. The PHB may (and does) but the SRD does not:<a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fleshtoStone.htm" target="_blank">Flesh to Stone :: d20srd.org</a><a href="http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SpellsA-B.rtf" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SpellsA-B.rtf</a> For that matter, the actual PHB says "Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone". It doesn't say it can reverse flesh to stone, end of story (as you imply), rather is uses flesh to stone to illustrate an example of an instantaneous effect spell. That's hardly "more reasonable", it's simply a more liberal interpretation that requires one insert language into the spell that doesn't exist. Now, one can certain try to interpret into the spell that dispel magic has to explicitly be called out as not working (which means they are taking the 3.0 language that was removed in 3.5 and putting it back in), or one can use the SRD language which leaves no question. The SRD doesn't reference any spell, and the SRD clearly stipulates the dispel magic situation. It's easier for me to accept the SRD than to insert language in the spell that doesn't exist. Indeed, I think that is a "more reasonable" interpretation.Now, if one wants to insert the 3.0 language into the spell description, I can completely agree with what you say. Barring that though, I stand by my original statement (and it is how I personally handle the spell and how I have seen the rest of the DM's in our group handle it, not that that really matters one way or the other).</blockquote>

Verification