Statue

[Infiniti2000]

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

So, the general case for magic is defined where? The default assumption is that the caster is still the caster and still has the same abilities. The general case for solid stone is that it can't cast spells, has no intelligence, etc. Are you gonna defend the position then that a caster in "statue form" cannot cast spells, has no intelligence, etc.? You have to be consistent.

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

I pointed this out before. Note the inherent contradiction in that, though. 'Act' is far more general than 'move'. If the caster cannot 'act' while in statue form, then he can't even revert to normal form in the first place. He couldn't fly, he couldn't dismiss statue, he couldn't, well, act at all. So, if you want to defend the position that the caster cannot even act, I can't argue with you. I'd say that that's definitely not the intent, but the wording could be interpreted that way.

 

[Murrdox]

The spell text referrs to "Statue State", meaning that "the subject to solid stone, along with any garments and equipment worn or carried."

Since when is "Solid Stone" flexible enough to move?

Infinity, your interpretation of the spell would be more like "Stone Form" or something along those lines. Saying that the title of the spell has no bearing on how it should be interpreted is nonsense. The title of the spell is just as much a part of the spell as the Spell description.

Obviously since you have the ability to transform from a statue and back again, you are capable of exerting mental control over yourself. Thus the effect of this spell seems to be simply that your body becomes an object, while you retain your mental capacity.

I think you're not seeing the forest through the trees, and refusing to acknowledge the very very SIMPLE concept of what a "Statue" is. The SRD tells you what a "Statue" is according to the game rules (hardness, keeps own hitpoints, etc) but it otherwise kind of assumes that you are smart enought to know what a "Statue" is, and the properties all statues possess. Of all the statues in the world, ONE definining thing they all have in common, no matter what material they are made out of... is that they do not move.

 

[Nail]

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.

I'm not sure that abrieviation of Latin means what you think it means...(...just kidding....) The fact that the spell does not say "he can't move" does not prove that the subject can move. The omission of the phrase does not prove the reverse.

In fact, the spell implies the subject is immoble (as most would expect a Statue to be) with this line: "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."

If you read closely, you see that this same statement solves your earlier problem of "not being able to act once a statue, since you can't act". The text says very clearly you can act, but only in one certain way: as a free action the subject may return to its normal state.


......at any rate, I'm not arguing the spell is crystal clear. Like many, it could use a bit of precise language.

 

[Nail]

Note the inherent contradiction in that, though. 'Act' is far more general than 'move'. If the caster cannot 'act' while in statue form, then he can't even revert to normal form in the first place.

Except that the spell specifically allows the subject the power to do so. See my previous post.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Since when is "Solid Stone" flexible enough to move?

In lots of cases. Consider a stone golem. There are other creatures in non-core rules that can move. Additionally, there are spells like stone shape that can 'move' stone. Magical can do non-normal stuff, you know.

Saying that the title of the spell has no bearing on how it should be interpreted is nonsense. The title of the spell is just as much a part of the spell as the Spell description.

Saying that the title of the spell defines how the spell should be interpreted is the nonsense. No, really. Why don't you refer to the comments I made above?

Obviously since you have the ability to transform from a statue and back again, you are capable of exerting mental control over yourself. Thus the effect of this spell seems to be simply that your body becomes an object, while you retain your mental capacity.

Your body becomes an object? Are you sure about that? Have you been reading this thread carefully?

I think you're not seeing the forest through the trees, and refusing to acknowledge the very very SIMPLE concept of what a "Statue" is. The SRD tells you what a "Statue" is according to the game rules (hardness, keeps own hitpoints, etc) but it otherwise kind of assumes that you are smart enought to know what a "Statue" is, and the properties all statues possess. Of all the statues in the world, ONE definining thing they all have in common, no matter what material they are made out of... is that they do not move.

No, I'm seeing it just fine, but I think you should not engage in a rules discussion with comments like "seems to be" and "kind of assumes." If you cannot understand the rules, don't discuss them. And, please refrain from the not-so-veiled insults with "simple" and "smart enough". No one asked you to join this discussion, so if you can't/won't follow it and understand what we are talking about, don't step in just to insult someone you don't know.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm not sure that abrieviation of Latin means what you think it means...(...just kidding....) The fact that the spell does not say "he can't move" does not prove that the subject can move. The omission of the phrase does not prove the reverse.

The key to this point, however, is that YOU must prove that he can't move. I need not prove that he can. The default is that the caster can move. You'd have to prove that this spell causes him not to move. Nothing does that.

...as most would expect a Statue to be...

I'd like to point out that the 'most' here must obviously refer to people not familiar with D&D. I think everyone on these boards would expect a person that just transform himself into a statue, or that detected magic on a statue and found a strong transmutation aura, would expect it to move. So, I'd ask my opponents in this thread to stop making assumptions that simply aren't true and are (what's the phrase I'm looking for) begging the question, leaping to a conclusion?

In fact, the spell implies the subject is immoble ... with this line: "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."

If you read closely, you see that this same statement solves your earlier problem of "not being able to act once a statue, since you can't act". The text says very clearly you can act, but only in one certain way: as a free action the subject may return to its normal state.

And then, with this interpretation, you'd agree that the wizard cannot do anything at all until he decides to be in statue form anymore? For instance, he couldn't fly or make a non-reactive spot check, etc.? (i.e. can take no actions) This interpretation I would buy as possible, but I'm sure we all agree that that's either not the correction interpretation or not the one we would choose to use.

 

[Bauglir]

So, the general case for magic is defined where? The default assumption is that the caster is still the caster and still has the same abilities. The general case for solid stone is that it can't cast spells, has no intelligence, etc. Are you gonna defend the position then that a caster in "statue form" cannot cast spells, has no intelligence, etc.? You have to be consistent.

Magical stone is the same as normal stone, except where noted otherwise. Just as magical fire is the same as normal fire, except where noted otherwise, etc. Like you say, you have to be consistent.

A character in statue form can see and hear, and can revert to its normal state to act. The latter would require a conscious decision on the part of the subject, hence the subject must have intelligence.

If the character had available a spell with no components which required movement of any kind I would allow them to cast it, as I am not aware of any further rules basis to prevent it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If the character had available a spell with no components which required movement of any kind I would allow them to cast it, as I am not aware of any further rules basis to prevent it.

Well, you said that the general case for solid stone is that it can't move. Despite the fact that you now say that it's magical stone, I suppose you still say that the caster can't move. Isn't it true that the general case for solid stone is that it can't cast spells? Yes. Therefore, a caster in statue form cannot cast spells, by your own logic. If you're not using rules, you have to at least stay consistent within your own logic.

A character in statue form can see and hear, and can revert to its normal state to act.

So, you follow the interpretation that you can't act in statue form, right? That directly proves that you can't cast spells, even without any components in statue form.

Interesting side thought, if you can't act do you get to roll initiative? If not then you can't act during an encounter if you don't resume normal form beforehand. And, you can't act until your initiative pops up, so you'll be stuck in statue form the whole time.

 

[Philip]

So, you follow the interpretation that you can't act in statue form, right? That directly proves that you can't cast spells, even without any components in statue form.

Infiniti, what do you want me to say? That 'act' isn't a defined game turn, so therefore you cannot assert that you can't cast spells is wrong? That the piece of text you quote is actually an example and not rules text?

To me it seems you are going into one logical fallacy after another, but that's not what I would like to discuss here, because I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye on that. We can discuss other things about the spell, though.

I think we both agree that the spell could be written better and is in need of clarification.
I think we also agree that the spell seems underpowered for its level if you don't interpret it beyond what it written.

Your interpretation reads into the spell that you can move as normal. Because being able to move is an advantage, the spell functions more or less as an unlimited stoneskin spell that lasts for many hours, right?

In my interpretation you are immobile while in statue form but acquire some of the properties of an object.

Using your intepretation I am wondering how you deal with issues like:

- Breathing (does the statue breathe, does it inhale and exhale?)
- Bleeding (does it bleed if you cut it, do wounding weapons work, does it have a pulse?)
- Burning (does the statue burn if subjected to fire?)
- Items (do any of the items you carry change, does a stone sword still cut the same, or will it simply shatter if you block a blow with it, as the spell's text suggests...)
- In what cases should you want to switch speedily back and forth between normal and solid stone state?

Because dealing with these issues is the reason that I came up with my interpretation of the spell. Extrapolating from the rules given my solution makes sense to me in these and other situations.

 

[Bauglir]

Well, you said that the general case for solid stone is that it can't move. Despite the fact that you now say that it's magical stone, I suppose you still say that the caster can't move. Isn't it true that the general case for solid stone is that it can't cast spells? Yes. Therefore, a caster in statue form cannot cast spells, by your own logic. If you're not using rules, you have to at least stay consistent within your own logic.

So, you follow the interpretation that you can't act in statue form, right? That directly proves that you can't cast spells, even without any components in statue form.

Interesting side thought, if you can't act do you get to roll initiative? If not then you can't act during an encounter if you don't resume normal form beforehand. And, you can't act until your initiative pops up, so you'll be stuck in statue form the whole time.

This is why I worded the post that I would allow it, rather than that it was allowed under the RAW.

I don't see why you wouldn't get to roll initative. You do have at least one action available to you (revert to normal state) and it would be necessary to determine when that could happen. I note that the spell specifies a free action to assume the stone form after acting, but does not specify the level of action required to resume normal form in the first place.