Can a cockatrice turn undead to stone?

[green slime]

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

-Hyp.

And so you argue. Yet, that isn't the way it plays at my table.

Should it say so? When does a sentence (or rule set for that matter) become unwieldy with explaining every dot, every thought, every possible consideration? When does it become obvious that the sentence is referring to undead, only undead, and undead on their own; objects, only objects, and objects on their own? How much effort are we willing to have designers spend, how much spending money are we willing to spend, to have rules that read like Law Books for the Judiciary? And even those are flawed and open to interpretation.

By your reasoning, the cockatrice stops the stone golem by... petrifying it? Some of the consequences of this interpretation are just too wierd for me.

Nowhere in the description of the Cockatrice's attack does it make mention of the fact that it affects objects at all. Therefore, the effect does not affect undead, nor does it affect constructs, IMC.

 

[Majere]

By hypersmurfs argument undead are valid targets for the polymoprh type spells.

Now that does make things interesting

Majere
Turns your lich into a BUNNY WABBIT

 

[Ranes]

Hyp,

I understand your interpretation. It hinges on the reasoning that, because Flesh to Stone affects objects, since it does when those objects are carried by the targeted creature, it meets one of the undead immunity exemption clause conditions.

I could see that was valid last night. However, I suggested an exemption, on the grounds that those objects affected by Flesh to Stone are exceptional by their nature. The spell never affects objects under other circumstances. Having slept on it, I am less inclined to justify the exception.

I still agree with Plane Sailing's point that a cockatrice's petrification attack is different to Flesh to Stone and wouldn't petrify objects carried or otherwise. In this case, the cockatrice wouldn't affect undead but Flesh to Stone could.

Edit: Apologies to Plane Sailing. Spelling corrected in both posts.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Nowhere in the description of the Cockatrice's attack does it make mention of the fact that it affects objects at all.

Right - that's Plane Sailing's point, and I agree. As written, the cockatrice turns the creature to stone without affecting his possessions - a different result to a Flesh to Stone spell - and thus won't affect undead or constructs.

But if the DM decides that it does affect possessions (like a Flesh to Stone spell), then it will also affect undead (like a Flesh to Stone spell).

-Hyp.

 

[Cheiromancer]

The reasoning that allows flesh to stone to affect undead would also apply to polymorph. But one of the feats from the Libris Mortis excerpt, Corrupted Wildshape, reads

Corrupted Wildshape [Monstrous]

You have learned to use the necromantic energies that power your undead form to overcome the inability of undead creatures to wildshape. You can assume the form of an undead, rotten creature with the use of your wildshape ability.

<snip>

Normal: Since it is based on the polymorph spell, wildshape works only on living creatures.

But if polymorph doesn't work on the undead, then the argument must be unsound. And if the argument is unsound, you can't conclude that flesh to stone works on the undead either.

 

[Diirk]

The reasoning that allows flesh to stone to affect undead would also apply to polymorph. But one of the feats from the Libris Mortis excerpt, Corrupted Wildshape, reads

Interesting, but meaningless. Polymorph doesn't work on undead because it has a target restriction of 'willing living creature touched'. You'll note that polymorph doesn't have a saving throw at all, so the whole fort save and object affecting argument really has nothing to do with it...

 

[Christian]

I think they had in mind Baleful Polymorph; target line there is 'one creature'.

I had been thinking Hyp was nuts, but I'm starting to come around. The contrast between the Polymorph and Baleful Polymorph target lines is telling; if Baleful Polymorph (and by extension, Flesh to Stone) was not supposed to work on undead creatures, the designers could have made this perfectly clear quite easily with a target line of 'one living creature'. That they did not do so leads me to believe that Hyp's interpretation is correct. (Although one should point out that skeletons, but not zombies, would be immune to Flesh to Stone, being fleshless ...)

 

[Terwox]

I'm not going to read any replies or post anything logical besides that Nethack lets you turn undead to stone while you wield a cockatrice corpse, or wear a ring of conflict and let the cockatrice hit them, or whatever you want, so I'd rule it that way without thinking until I read this post which thinks about the rules.
So... yeah!

 

[Nifft]

Perhaps I can help clear up my (non-Hyp) view:

Consider Flesh to Stone as one spell that generates two distinct effects, the latter contingent upon the former.

Effect 1: Target critter turns to stone. Requires Fort save, thus Undead are immune.

Effect 2: Target critter's equipment (no matter its state) turns to stone. No save, Undead are affected.

Note that Effect 2 requires Effect 1, but they're not the same thing. You can consider the equipment-merging aspect of the various Polymorph spells (including Alter Self) to be identically contingent, yet distinct.

-- N

 

[Nightglow998]

Although the normal immunity to fortitude saves nirmally would apply for spells like flesh to stone, we've had arguments that it wouldnt apply since in all technical sense, flesh to.stone does not actually harm the creature it is affecting. While it can be damaged while afefected by the spell, the spell doesnt do damage itself, and the effects of the spell can be reversed. Since the undead traits specifically say "unless the ffect works on objects or is HARMLESS", it could have an affect on some undead (should it have flesh that could be affected)