Can a cockatrice turn undead to stone?

[tsalla]

Stone skeletons

I agree with Patryn that although undead are creatures, because of the Fort save and because unattended objects aren't affected by a cockatrice's petrification, undead wouldn't be affected.

Pity. Animated skeletons are the one thing I could imagine still functioning when and even benefitting from being turned to stone!

Trevor

 

[Droid101]

Can a cockatrice turn undead...

Well, if the cockatrice has levels of cleric or paladin, then it most certainly could.

Oh wait...

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm claiming that the effect differs depending on how the undead gets affected, while you are repeating that, because sometimes undead are affected, therefore always undead are affected.

Hmm... If the rules said undead are treated as objects for the purpose of effects that allow a Fort save, I'd agree with your reading.

But they don't - they say Undead are immune, unless the spell can affect objects.

Stone to Flesh can affect objects, therefore undead aren't immune. That's the summary of my position - I don't really agree with how you summarised it above

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

Hyp, am I right in thinking you agree that cockatrices can't turn undead to stone?

Daniel

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hmm... If the rules said undead are treated as objects for the purpose of effects that allow a Fort save, I'd agree with your reading.

But they don't - they say Undead are immune, unless the spell can affect objects.

Stone to Flesh can affect objects, therefore undead aren't immune. That's the summary of my position - I don't really agree with how you summarised it above

And by that logic, the spell Charm Monster can affect objects.

 

[Deset Gled]

And by that logic, the spell Charm Monster can affect objects.

While I have a feeling you're joking, that statement is very wrong. Flesh to stone specifically affects the items attended by a person. With Charm Monster, the objects themselves are unaffected in any way, the person that is attending them is just likely to attend them differently. This is especially important for intelligent weapons. In the FtS case, the weapon becomes pretty much as useless as the character, where in the case of CM, the weapon may actually help to bring the character out of the charm.

Personally, I find Hyp's comment very interesting because it addresses the gap that exists between game defined terms and usage of the general language having affect on the rules. In game terms, items cannot be designated a targed of certain spells, but it is slightly ambiguous as to whether or not this is the only thing that is meant by whether or not a spell can affect an object. Personally, I think I tend to side with Hyp on this one.

 

[Ranes]

Okay. Here goes my take. All text in quotation marks is as written in the PH or MM.

Flesh to Stone affects objects only if they are carried gear. The target is 'one creature', specifically, a creature 'made of flesh'.

That suggests an argument for an exceptional case in which undead retain their immunity (which is to any 'effect', not just spell).

The cockatrice's Petrification attack is a supernatural effect that affects 'creatures'. Objects are not mentioned. This also suggests to me that undead retain their immunity and, as Plane Sailing said, an affected creature's carried gear wouldn't turn to stone.

Maybe? No?

Edit: stupid phraseology

 

[Nifft]

I'm considering an explicit house rule that every living critter has a "morphogenic field" that extends to his equipment. This is why "attended" objects get a saving throw in certain situations, and it's what determines the boundary between equipment (which morphs into your form when you polymorph) and stuff that you just drop.

Transmutation spells target your morphogenic field, convincing it that you're really something else. In some situations -- when the transformation spell expires, for example -- your morphogenic field re-asserts itself and sets your form aright. (The residual field is also what Detect Magic picks up when used on a statue of a former living critter.)

Morphogenic fields are generated by Charisma. I've got to work out the rest of the implications, though.

I don't really agree with how you summarised it above

Well, of course not! You're all biased by not agreeing with me!

-- N

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

While I have a feeling you're joking, that statement is very wrong.

I disagree (well, duh, right?).

If the definition of "Affects objects" is "can affect an object on a creature that is subject to a creature-only targeted spell" - as Hyp is suggesting - then my reading is just as valid as his. Through Charm Monster, I can cause things to happen to a creature's possessions, therefore it is affecting them.

Change my earlier suggestion - Charm Monster - into Dominate Monster, and the case is even stronger.

You cannot cast the spell Flesh to Stone on a sword that is lying on the ground and cause it to turn into granite. You can cast Flesh to Stone on a peasant wielding the sword, and cause the sword to turn into granite.

You cannot cast the spell Dominate Monster on a sword that is lying on the ground and cause it to fall into a volcano. You can cast Dominate Monster on a peasant wielding the sword, and cause the sword to fall into the volcano.

 

[Deset Gled]

You cannot cast the spell Flesh to Stone on a sword that is lying on the ground and cause it to turn into granite. You can cast Flesh to Stone on a peasant wielding the sword, and cause the sword to turn into granite.

You cannot cast the spell Dominate Monster on a sword that is lying on the ground and cause it to fall into a volcano. You can cast Dominate Monster on a peasant wielding the sword, and cause the sword to fall into the volcano.

Sure, you can use Flesh to Stone to turn a sword into stone if it's attended. But there's no way you can Dominate a sword.

Getting the end result of a sword being thrown in a volcano is far from "control[ing] the actions of [the sword] through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind," which is what the spell does. As I said before, this is particularly important (and obvious) when dealing with intelligent iteams. Does Dominating a person holding an intelligent sword mean that you have control over the sword as well? No, it doesn't. This is completely the opposite of FtS, where the sword is turned to stone in exactly the same manner as the target of the spell.

Your example doesn't even match up to itself. By Dominating a person, you could tell that person to throw their weapon in a volcano (which would probably force another save with a +2 bonus). But even if you could Dominate an item, you still couldn't command the sword to jump into a volcano, because "obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out."