Can a cockatrice turn undead to stone?

[rrealm]

A few sessions ago we had a situation where we (the party) were attacked by a few cockatrices. In our party, our wizard uses the undead skeleton familiar from unearthed arcana. Throughout the course of the battle, the skeleton was hit with the cockatrice’s beak. Then the debate came. Can a cockatrice turn a corporal undead to stone? Are some undead affected (like a zombie) but some are not (like a skeleton). At first we said no since the flesh to stone spell requires flesh and our skeleton has none. However, if one is affected by petrification, ones objects turn to stone also. This posed another dilemma. If petrification can affect objects, and undead are immune to all spells that require a fortitude save unless it affects an object - undead can be affected, thus, our skeleton companion can turn to stone if he fails his fortitude save (which is quite possible having no ability bonus to add to the die roll). Our skeleton failed and we left him where he stood and walked off saddened. Later, we encountered a vampire and began fighting him and I got to thinking, if we had a cockatrice, and it could hit the vampire (much easier said than done, I know), the vampire would have to make a save throw which it would have few bonuses to add to the die roll. What if a cockatrice could hit a lich? It seams bizarre to me that a being so specialized in magic that can “live” for 1500+ years could be defeated with a lowly cockatrice with one lucky attack roll.

Did our logic stray somewhere? Have we missed an important sentence regarding undead qualities or “a list of requirements” for petrification to take effect? What do you think?

 

[dcollins]

I'd say you're not missing anything obvious, it's a good point that requires DM adjudication. Different groups will decide differently.

Here's how I read it, from the SRD (note DC 15 in 3.0):

Petrification (Su): Creatures hit by a cockatrice’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or instantly turn to stone. The save DC is Constitution-based. Cockatrices have immunity to the petrification ability of other cockatrices, but other petrification attacks affect them normally.

Now, this description doesn't say anything about "flesh to stone" even though we're frequently thinking of the spell of that name. It also specifically says "creatures" can be affected, not objects. Therefore it seems like a no-flesh skeleton is not an issue -- but since it only affects "creatures", Undead would be immune to this Fort-effect.

It's then a little odd that possessions of a petrified creature turn to stone, but we're concluding that objects by themselves aren't affected. But, that cat's already out of the bag -- in D&D objects gain all kinds of funky extra robustness (saves, damage in an area-effect) when they get picked up by creatures to become possessions. We might infer that in D&D creatures have some "aura" that makes possessions share their own state of being, or something like that.

That's how I'd rule on the issue as DM, anyway.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Your logic strayed.

From the SRD description of Cockatrices:

Petrification (Su): Creatures hit by a cockatrice’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or instantly turn to stone. The save DC is Constitution-based. Cockatrices have immunity to the petrification ability of other cockatrices, but other petrification attacks affect them normally.

Note that it is a Supernatural effect that affects creatures only and requires a Fortitude save.

From the description of the Undead type:

—Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).

So, the best way to attack cockatrices, it would seem, is with skeletons and zombies.

Your wizard should be happy to have his skeleton familiar back.

EDIT, to add:

Note that the spell Flesh to Stone has a target entry of "One Creature," as well. Thus, it wouldn't work on undead, either.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

That's how I'd rule on the issue as DM, anyway.

*agrees with dcollins*

*gets an idea about undead cockatrices*

*runs away, laughing maniacally*

AR

 

[CRGreathouse]

Now, this description doesn't say anything about "flesh to stone" even though we're frequently thinking of the spell of that name. It also specifically says "creatures" can be affected, not objects. Therefore it seems like a no-flesh skeleton is not an issue -- but since it only affects "creatures", Undead would be immune to this Fort-effect.

As Patryn pointed out, undead are immune because of the Fort save. I did want to point out that undead are creatures, though, not objects -- they have Wisdom and Charisma scores, and that's enough for the rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

As Patryn pointed out, undead are immune because of the Fort save. I did want to point out that undead are creatures, though, not objects -- they have Wisdom and Charisma scores, and that's enough for the rules.

Right - I believe the point drcollins was responding to was that, even though they are creatures, they are treated like objects when it comes to any effect requiring a Fort save.

Thus, you could disintegrate a skeleton - because Disintegrate works on objects, even though it has a Fort save - but you couldn't turn one to stone with a Flesh to Stone spell - because FtS does not affect objects.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thus, you could disintegrate a skeleton - because Disintegrate works on objects, even though it has a Fort save - but you couldn't turn one to stone with a Flesh to Stone spell - because FtS does not affect objects.

It does hinge on the reading of 'affect', though. Flesh to Stone cannot target an object, but it explicitly affects them, via the "along with all its carried gear" clause.

Now, whether this is enough to qualify it as "a spell that affects objects" is what's debated.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

I'd argue that the spell "Flesh to Stone" would affect an undead that were in another living creature's inventory -- that were effectively an equip-able object, like a familiar homunculous.

So, it couldn't affect an undead by targeting an undead, but it could co-incidentally affect an undead acting like an object.

-- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd argue that the spell "Flesh to Stone" would affect an undead that were in another living creature's inventory -- that were effectively an equip-able object, like a familiar homunculous.

So, it couldn't affect an undead by targeting an undead, but it could co-incidentally affect an undead acting like an object.

Well, a zombie is a valid target for Flesh to Stone - it's 'one creature'. And Flesh to Stone isn't a spell that cannot affect objects (or possessions couldn't be affected, by definition!), so undead aren't immune to it.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

I'd argue that Flesh to Stone can only affect objects that are carried by the target, and cannot target objects directly. Therefore, when the spell is directly targeting a zombie, it is not targeting the zombie as an object, but rather as a creature, and thus the zombie is immune to it.

Only if a zombie is coincidentally affected -- by being in another creature's inventory, for example -- would it be affected as an object.

-- N