Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Philip" data-source="post: 2499922" data-attributes="member: 10993">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.</blockquote>

Verification