Statue

[Lonely Tylenol]

When they happen to mention a word in the spell name, it's clear. For instance, mount: "You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount." They could have titled the spell "Philip's Bumpy Ride" and none of those three words should have any bearing whatsoever on the game mechanics of the spell.

Ironically, Philip means "lover of horses".

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ironically, Philip means "lover of horses".

I thought that was "Equus" ...

 

[Philip]

Ah, yes. Missed that.

So . . . he becomes a statue, but not an object? You do realize, of course, that if he's not an object and you are in fact agreeing with me and that pretty much everything you said 'yes' to is wrong and you are contradicting yourself? If he's not object, you can't use the Object rules.

I fail to see why. Some objects are animate, others aren't, some have mental ability scores, other's don't, some work like creatures (constructs), other's don't. My reading is the best interpretation I can come up with that makes sense, is playable and does justice to the spell's power. It is hardly RAW since the statue spell is too vague in many areas. One thing it isn't vague about is that it turns you into a statue.

You stated that the subject does not turn into a statue because the 'solid stone' according to you does not refer to the spell's name (it could just as well be 'Terrible Form'). And when the spell text reads "breaking off one of the statue's arms" is also somehow flavor text? How should that word be interpreted?

To me it seems you read into the spell what you want to read. While I am fine with you ruling 'the statue' to be animate, I am baffled why you do it based on the fact that you think there is not enough evidence that the spell turns you into a statue.

 

[Philip]

Ironically, Philip means "lover of horses".

Don't get me started on that....

I have heard all conjugations of it in all kinds of languages in high school, dutch, english, german, greek, latin, and they were not meant as a compliment.

That's what you get when your very first History lesson involves looking up the meaning of every name in the class..

At least I know it got that meaning because Philip of Macedonia (father of Alexander the Great) was a lover of horses....

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I fail to see why. Some objects are animate, others aren't, some have mental ability scores, other's don't, some work like creatures (constructs), other's don't. My reading is the best interpretation I can come up with that makes sense, is playable and does justice to the spell's power. It is hardly RAW since the statue spell is too vague in many areas. One thing it isn't vague about is that it turns you into a statue.

Well actually the rules are very clear about the distinction between an object and a creature. A construct is definitely not an object. It is a creature. An animated object is also technically a creature, although it has hardness. I'd just call it a "spell effect" and leave it at that. But the Statue spell is unclear on whether you become an object or stay a creature. Either choice would have some very clear game mechanical effects, so it's an important point left out.

If you read it as the RAW is generally read with the "it doesn't say X, so X is not the case" mentality, you stay a creature. If you read it as the spell text suggests obliquely, you become an object. By the RAW, I'd say Infinity2000 is right, but I doubt that's what the spell was supposed to do. I seem to remember it was more clear in previous editions. But considering the level of the spell, you'd think it would be more useful...

 

[Infiniti2000]

You stated that the subject does not turn into a statue because the 'solid stone' according to you does not refer to the spell's name (it could just as well be 'Terrible Form').

If you rule based on the spell's name, you're gonna come up with some really funky stuff. Just a few:

overland flight - Cannot be used to fly over bodies of water or really anywhere land doesn't exist, such as in the elemental plane of air
stoneskin - Hey, this one has all the advantages of statue and none of the disadvantages (except for the cost). Not only do you gain DR 10/adamantine, but you gain 8 hardness and a slew of other stuff (half damage from ranged weapons, etc.).
bear's endurance - okay, I don't want to even think about this one
animate rope - despite the text saying "ropelike object" due to the spell name you just gotta limit it to ropes

To me it seems you read into the spell what you want to read. While I am fine with you ruling 'the statue' to be animate, I am baffled why you do it based on the fact that you think there is not enough evidence that the spell turns you into a statue.

No, I'm not reading just what I want to read, I'm merely reading just what it says and attributing no extra rules beyond that. It doesn't matter even if the spell said "This turns the subject into a statue." Because, unless it specifies that you cannot move, cannot actions, etc. it's too vague. Why couldn't it be a statue that can move? A 7th level spell can't do that? Animate Object can do much better at 6th level. It must therefore be flavor.

Is it a mistake, and the designers really intend that you can't move? I doubt it. That would quite frankly suck as a spell. In fact, merely granting hardness (essentially DR 8/- in most cases, but not all) isn't that great though it lasts forever. It would be nice if it granted some more of the object-like benefits (resistances to energy, etc.) and/or some illusory magic that actually tried to hide you as a statue. It would be a very rare case for a statue of an archmage to actually be ignored, so I can't even think of a use for this spell without the combat benefits.

 

[Nail]

Why couldn't it be a statue that can move?

Of course it could. But as I said, you're gonna need to prove that the spell allows the subject to move (cast, attack, etc) as a statue. The onus is on you.

That would quite frankly suck as a spell.

There are many spells that suck. (shrug)

 

[Infiniti2000]

Of course it could. But as I said, you're gonna need to prove that the spell allows the subject to move (cast, attack, etc) as a statue. The onus is on you.

No, it's not. The caster can move before casting the spell, the spell doesn't say he can't move, thus he can move after casting the spell. QED. You saying he can't move is thus clearly a houserule.

 

[Bauglir]

A statue spell turns the subject to solid stone

Solid stone, as a general case can't move. Unless the text specifically says it can, isn't that the default assumption?

 

[werk]

The part of the spell description that makes me think it turns the subject into inamimate stone, more so than the 'solid stone' line, is: "The subject of a statue spell can return to its normal state, act, and then return instantly to the statue state (a free action) if it so desires, as long as the spell duration is in effect."

It implies that the subject must revert to normal in order to 'act'.