Can a cockatrice turn undead to stone?

[Matafuego]

And what about Baleful Polymorphing a sword?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Really?

It seems like I had pretty good control over it when I commanded my Dominated minion to Power Attack his friend...

You're drawing lines that don't necessarily exist in Hyp's initial formulation and saying "This is fine, but that is not."

If I command my Dominated minion to lift his hand holding the sword, the sword lifts. If I command him to drop the sword, the sword drops.

The spell is affecting the sword through the sword's possessor, in exactly the same manner that Flesh to Stone may only affect a sword through the sword's possessor.

If one, therefore, is "object-affecting," the other is necessarily object affecting.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

Undead are never affected by flesh to stone. Creatures are not considered part of a creature's equipment, even if they're in the same space or on the other creature; hence, what Hypersmurf was saying before doesn't hold true. Since a creature is the only thing you can cast the spell on directly, and undead are immune to that, it can't affect them.

Quite honestly, there is a level or rules-lawyering and splitting verbal hairs that even the rules lawyers themselves see as ridiculous. Saying undead can be affected by flesh to stone because a target's gear is also petrified is a good example of that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

I'm not sure what your point is... Dominate Monster doesn't have a Fort save, so whether or not it is a 'spell that can affect objects' is irrelevant...?

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

As long as they don't turn equipment to stone, sure.

If the DM rules that they do, he is by extension ruling that they can affect undead.

-Hyp.

 

[Incenjucar]

...

Creatures are, at no point, equipment. A shrieker on your shoulder is not equipment. A skeleton in your arms is not equipment. Logically, an intelligent item isn't even equipment except in the way a monk's hands are 'weapons'.

The corpses of creatures, of course, are not creatures, and as such, can be 'equipped'. If you're holding a corpse when you get petrified, presuming you're large enough to 'equip' it, rather than just 'touch it'. You're not going to be petrifying a whale corpse by having some worm sit on it which you cast Flesh to Stone on.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Creatures are, at no point, equipment.

That's not the point at all.

I'm not advocating being able to treat undead creatures as equipment.

But again - Fort save spells don't affect undead as if they were objects. Rather, Fort save spells affect undead as if they were creatures. However, if the spell cannot affect objects, undead are immune to it.

It's not necessary to consider the undead to be equipment. It's just necessary to show that since the spell can affect equipment - objects - it is not a spell that cannot affect objects.

If a Fort save spell is not a spell that cannot affect objects, then undead are not immune to it. Flesh to Stone affects equipment, which means it affects objects, which means it is not a spell that cannot affect objects, which means undead are not immune to it.

'Undead are not equipment' doesn't enter into the logic chain at any point.

-Hyp.

 

[green slime]

I have to agree that this is a level of hair-splitting that is rediculous.

When they (the authors) say

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

If you think undead shouldn't be affected, the passage should say "unless the effect may target objects, or the effect is harmless".

The phrase "works on objects" is ill-defined.

IMO, it doesn't work. My PC chops of a finger, lays it on the ground, and the chimera can't turn the finger to stone. It seems then strange that the act of animating the finger (by necromancy or animate object) will render the finger "stoneable". YMMV.

Suppose a druid could cast magic fang on a cockatrice and then the incorporeal undead are also unsafe. Incorporeal stoned shadows... Makes for an interesting twist to those warning statues one always sees around cockatrice lairs.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you think undead shouldn't be affected, the passage should say "unless the effect may target objects, or the effect is harmless".

But then Disintegrate could not affect undead, since it doesn't target anything... it creates a ray. Nor could anything that has an Area entry affect undead.

-Hyp.

 

[green slime]

Well, I still think you are reading too much by the incidental stoning of objects via their possessor's missed save to inferr that undead are affected, especially as the same effect cannot affect objects on their own.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, I still think you are reading too much by the incidental stoning of objects via their possessor's missed save to inferr that undead are affected, especially as the same effect cannot affect objects on their own.

But 'on their own' is not part of the condition laid down in the undead immunity.

-Hyp.