# Can a cockatrice turn undead to stone?



## rrealm (Oct 7, 2004)

A few sessions ago we had a situation where we (the party) were attacked by a few cockatrices.  In our party, our wizard uses the undead skeleton familiar from unearthed arcana.  Throughout the course of the battle, the skeleton was hit with the cockatrice’s beak.  Then the debate came.  Can a cockatrice turn a corporal undead to stone?  Are some undead affected (like a zombie) but some are not (like a skeleton).  At first we said no since the flesh to stone spell requires flesh and our skeleton has none.  However, if one is affected by petrification, ones objects turn to stone also.  This posed another dilemma.  If petrification can affect objects, and undead are immune to all spells that require a fortitude save unless it affects an object -  undead can be affected, thus, our skeleton companion can turn to stone if he fails his fortitude save (which is quite possible having no ability bonus to add to the die roll).  Our skeleton failed and we left him where he stood and walked off saddened.  Later, we encountered a vampire and began fighting him and I got to thinking, if we had a cockatrice, and it could hit the vampire (much easier said than done, I know), the vampire would have to make a save throw which it would have few bonuses to add to the die roll.  What if a cockatrice could hit a lich?  It seams bizarre to me that a being so specialized in magic that can “live” for 1500+ years could be defeated with a lowly cockatrice with one lucky attack roll.

Did our logic stray somewhere?  Have we missed an important sentence regarding undead qualities or “a list of requirements” for petrification to take effect?  What do you think?


----------



## dcollins (Oct 7, 2004)

I'd say you're not missing anything obvious, it's a good point that requires DM adjudication. Different groups will decide differently.

Here's how I read it, from the SRD (note DC 15 in 3.0):



> Petrification (Su): Creatures hit by a cockatrice’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or instantly turn to stone. The save DC is Constitution-based.  Cockatrices have immunity to the petrification ability of other cockatrices, but other petrification attacks affect them normally.




Now, this description doesn't say anything about "flesh to stone" even though we're frequently thinking of the spell of that name. It also specifically says "creatures" can be affected, not objects. Therefore it seems like a no-flesh skeleton is not an issue -- but since it only affects "creatures", Undead would be immune to this Fort-effect.

It's then a little odd that possessions of a petrified creature turn to stone, but we're concluding that objects by themselves aren't affected. But, that cat's already out of the bag -- in D&D objects gain all kinds of funky extra robustness (saves, damage in an area-effect) when they get picked up by creatures to become possessions. We might infer that in D&D creatures have some "aura" that makes possessions share their own state of being, or something like that.

That's how I'd rule on the issue as DM, anyway.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 7, 2004)

Your logic strayed.

From the SRD description of Cockatrices:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Petrification (Su):* Creatures hit by a cockatrice’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 12 Fortitude save or instantly turn to stone. The save DC is Constitution-based.  Cockatrices have immunity to the petrification ability of other cockatrices, but other petrification attacks affect them normally.




Note that it is a Supernatural effect that affects creatures only and requires a Fortitude save.

From the description of the Undead type:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

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




So, the best way to attack cockatrices, it would seem, is with skeletons and zombies.

Your wizard should be happy to have his skeleton familiar back.  

EDIT, to add:

Note that the spell Flesh to Stone has a target entry of "One Creature," as well.  Thus, it wouldn't work on undead, either.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Oct 7, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> That's how I'd rule on the issue as DM, anyway.




*agrees with dcollins*

*gets an idea about undead cockatrices*

*runs away, laughing maniacally*

AR


----------



## CRGreathouse (Oct 7, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Now, this description doesn't say anything about "flesh to stone" even though we're frequently thinking of the spell of that name. It also specifically says "creatures" can be affected, not objects. Therefore it seems like a no-flesh skeleton is not an issue -- but since it only affects "creatures", Undead would be immune to this Fort-effect.




As Patryn pointed out, undead are immune because of the Fort save.  I did want to point out that undead are creatures, though, not objects -- they have Wisdom and Charisma scores, and that's enough for the rules.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 7, 2004)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> As Patryn pointed out, undead are immune because of the Fort save.  I did want to point out that undead are creatures, though, not objects -- they have Wisdom and Charisma scores, and that's enough for the rules.




Right - I believe the point drcollins was responding to was that, even though they are creatures, they are treated like objects when it comes to any effect requiring a Fort save.

Thus, you could disintegrate a skeleton - because Disintegrate works on objects, even though it has a Fort save - but you couldn't turn one to stone with a Flesh to Stone spell - because FtS does not affect objects.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 7, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Thus, you could disintegrate a skeleton - because Disintegrate works on objects, even though it has a Fort save - but you couldn't turn one to stone with a Flesh to Stone spell - because FtS does not affect objects.




It does hinge on the reading of 'affect', though.  Flesh to Stone cannot _target_ an object, but it explicitly _affects_ them, via the "along with all its carried gear" clause.

Now, whether this is enough to qualify it as "a spell that affects objects" is what's debated.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 8, 2004)

I'd argue that the spell "Flesh to Stone" would affect an undead that were in another living creature's inventory -- that were effectively an equip-able object, like a familiar homunculous.

So, it couldn't affect an undead by targeting an undead, but it could co-incidentally affect an undead acting like an object.

 -- N


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 8, 2004)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'd argue that the spell "Flesh to Stone" would affect an undead that were in another living creature's inventory -- that were effectively an equip-able object, like a familiar homunculous.
> 
> So, it couldn't affect an undead by targeting an undead, but it could co-incidentally affect an undead acting like an object.




Well, a zombie is a valid target for Flesh to Stone - it's 'one creature'.  And Flesh to Stone isn't a spell that cannot affect objects (or possessions couldn't be affected, by definition!), so undead aren't immune to it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 8, 2004)

I'd argue that Flesh to Stone can only affect objects that are carried by the target, and cannot target objects directly. Therefore, when the spell is directly targeting a zombie, it is _not targeting the zombie as an object_, but rather as a _creature_, and thus the zombie is immune to it.

Only if a zombie is _coincidentally_ affected -- by being in another creature's inventory, for example -- would it be affected _as an object_.

 -- N


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 8, 2004)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'd argue that Flesh to Stone can only affect objects that are carried by the target, and cannot target objects directly.




Whether it can target them is irrelevant.

The question is "Is _Flesh to Stone_ a spell that cannot affect objects?"

If the answer is yes, then undead are immune.

If the answer is no, they aren't.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 8, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Whether it can target them is irrelevant.




That's where you're wrong.

The effect cannot affect an object as a target. Thus, it cannot affect an undead as a target.

The effect can affect an object as part of a valid target's equipment. Thus, it can affect an undead as part of a valid target's equipment.

Perfectly obvious. 

 -- N


----------



## Scion (Oct 8, 2004)

It cannot turn just any object into stone, merely carried gear. Although, typically in my games the gear is not turned to stone with the creature (although most gear becomes nearly impossible to remove without damaging the statue).

Still, since the spell itself does not directly affect objects then I would assume undead to be immune. The spells turning gear to stone seems more of a side effect of the creature turning to stone rather than actually directly effecting it in any way. Sortof like the creature dragging its stuff along with it with various other spells 

Much like shout does special damage to certain types of materials flesh to stone singles out a special type of item that might be turned to stone, carried gear. Not the best anology, but it does show that there are special subcategories that can be called into play as needed. In this case 'carried gear' does not extend to 'undead in general'.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 8, 2004)

Nifft said:
			
		

> The effect can affect an object as part of a valid target's equipment.




That's right.  So it's not a spell that cannot affect objects, which are the sort that undead are immune to.

Disintegrate doesn't vaporise up to 10 cubic feet of an undead creature; it deals 2d6/level (or 5d6 on a successful save) damage to it.

It doesn't affect the undead as it would an object; it affects it as a creature (because it is).  It affects it as a creature, because the spell is capable of affecting objects.

Flesh to Stone affects an undead as a creature, because the spell is capable of affecting objects.  It doesn't matter _how_ it affects objects, only that it _can_, which is all that's necessary to obviate the undead immunity to Fort-save effects.

-Hyp.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 8, 2004)

My reading is that a cockatrice couldn't turn undead to stone.

As has been pointed out, the flesh to stone spell will affect objects, and so can validly target undead.

The cockatrice entry for petrification doesn't say that it turns all their possessions to stone, nor does it refer to the flesh to stone spell, so I would rule that it turns the creature to stone but none of its possessions - you end up with a naked statue wearing clothes 

As such, the way I see it, the cockatrice will not effect undead.

Cheers


----------



## Nifft (Oct 8, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's right.




Yep. I'm right. 

Clearly we differ in interpretation.

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.

We disagree, and we aren't making any new points, so let's drop it.

I agree with PS about the cockatrice.

 -- N


----------



## smetzger (Oct 8, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The cockatrice entry for petrification doesn't say that it turns all their possessions to stone, nor does it refer to the flesh to stone spell, so I would rule that it turns the creature to stone but none of its possessions - you end up with a naked statue wearing clothes




What, you guys wear clothes?


----------



## rrealm (Oct 8, 2004)

I appreciate your insight everyone.  I never imagined that I would have to discuss whether or not a skeleton can be turned to stone.     Let me rake your brain some more….

If two people are holding onto each other (holding hands, hugging, grappling), and person A gets turned to stone, does person B turn to stone?  If one could convince a cohort to grapple a vampire and then the cohort is turned to stone (evil campaign   ), is the vampire considered “carried gear”, and is thus affected?

“Squire Bob, I’ll give you an extra 50 gp to you after this fight with the vampire if you wrestle him to the ground for just a second.  The wizard needs to affect him with a spell which will only succeed if you’re holding him still.”


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 8, 2004)

I'd go with no on that one.  Sorry.


----------



## rrealm (Oct 8, 2004)

Squire Bob is safe... for now


----------



## tsalla (Oct 8, 2004)

*Stone skeletons*

I agree with Patryn that although undead are creatures, because of the Fort save and because unattended objects aren't affected by a cockatrice's petrification, undead wouldn't be affected.

Pity.  Animated skeletons are the one thing I could imagine still functioning when and even benefitting from being turned to stone!

Trevor


----------



## Droid101 (Oct 8, 2004)

rrealm said:
			
		

> Can a cockatrice turn undead...



Well, if the cockatrice has levels of cleric or paladin, then it most certainly could.

Oh wait...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 8, 2004)

Nifft said:
			
		

> 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.




Hmm... If the rules said undead are treated as objects for the purpose of effects that allow a Fort save, I'd agree with your reading.

But they don't - they say Undead are immune, unless the spell can affect objects.

Stone to Flesh can affect objects, therefore undead aren't immune.  That's the summary of my position - I don't really agree with how you summarised it above 

-Hyp.


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 8, 2004)

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

Daniel


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 8, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hmm... If the rules said undead are treated as objects for the purpose of effects that allow a Fort save, I'd agree with your reading.
> 
> But they don't - they say Undead are immune, unless the spell can affect objects.
> 
> Stone to Flesh can affect objects, therefore undead aren't immune.  That's the summary of my position - I don't really agree with how you summarised it above




And by that logic, the spell _Charm Monster_ can affect objects.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 8, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And by that logic, the spell _Charm Monster_ can affect objects.




While I have a feeling you're joking, that statement is very wrong.  Flesh to stone specifically affects the items attended by a person.  With Charm Monster, the objects themselves are unaffected in any way, the person that is attending them is just likely to attend them differently.  This is especially important for intelligent weapons.  In the FtS case, the weapon becomes pretty much as useless as the character, where in the case of CM, the weapon may actually help to bring the character out of the charm.

Personally, I find Hyp's comment very interesting because it addresses the gap that exists between game defined terms and usage of the general language having affect on the rules.  In game terms, items cannot be designated a targed of certain spells, but it is slightly ambiguous as to whether or not this is the only thing that is meant by whether or not a spell can affect an object.  Personally, I think I tend to side with Hyp on this one.


----------



## Ranes (Oct 8, 2004)

Okay. Here goes my take. All text in quotation marks is as written in the PH or MM.

Flesh to Stone affects objects only if they are carried gear. The target is 'one creature', specifically, a creature 'made of flesh'.

That suggests an argument for an exceptional case in which undead retain their immunity (which is to any 'effect', not just spell).

The cockatrice's Petrification attack is a supernatural effect that affects 'creatures'. Objects are not mentioned. This also suggests to me that undead retain their immunity and, as Plane Sailing said, an affected creature's carried gear wouldn't turn to stone.

Maybe? No?

Edit: stupid phraseology


----------



## Nifft (Oct 8, 2004)

I'm considering an explicit house rule that every living critter has a "morphogenic field" that extends to his equipment. This is why "attended" objects get a saving throw in certain situations, and it's what determines the boundary between equipment (which morphs into your form when you polymorph) and stuff that you just drop.

Transmutation spells target your morphogenic field, convincing it that you're really something else. In some situations -- when the transformation spell expires, for example -- your morphogenic field re-asserts itself and sets your form aright. (The residual field is also what Detect Magic picks up when used on a statue of a former living critter.)

Morphogenic fields are generated by Charisma. I've got to work out the rest of the implications, though.



			
				Hyp said:
			
		

> I don't really agree with how you summarised it above




Well, of course not! You're all biased by not agreeing with me! 

 -- N


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 9, 2004)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> While I have a feeling you're joking, that statement is very wrong.




I disagree (well, duh, right?).

If the definition of "Affects objects" is "can affect an object on a creature that is subject to a creature-only targeted spell" - as Hyp is suggesting - then my reading is just as valid as his.  Through Charm Monster, I can cause things to happen to a creature's possessions, therefore it is affecting them.

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

You cannot cast the spell Flesh to Stone on a sword that is lying on the ground and cause it to turn into granite.  You can cast Flesh to Stone on a peasant wielding the sword, and cause the sword to turn into granite.

You cannot cast the spell Dominate Monster on a sword that is lying on the ground and cause it to fall into a volcano.  You can cast Dominate Monster on a peasant wielding the sword, and cause the sword to fall into the volcano.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 9, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You cannot cast the spell Flesh to Stone on a sword that is lying on the ground and cause it to turn into granite.  You can cast Flesh to Stone on a peasant wielding the sword, and cause the sword to turn into granite.
> 
> You cannot cast the spell Dominate Monster on a sword that is lying on the ground and cause it to fall into a volcano.  You can cast Dominate Monster on a peasant wielding the sword, and cause the sword to fall into the volcano.




Sure, you can use Flesh to Stone to turn a sword into stone if it's attended.  But there's no way you can Dominate a sword.  

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.  As I said before, this is particularly important (and obvious) when dealing with intelligent iteams.  Does Dominating a person holding an intelligent sword mean that you have control over the sword as well?  No, it doesn't.  This is completely the opposite of FtS, where the sword is turned to stone in exactly the same manner as the target of the spell.

Your example doesn't even match up to itself.  By Dominating a person, you could tell that person to throw their weapon in a volcano (which would probably force another save with a +2 bonus).  But even if you could Dominate an item, you still couldn't command the sword to jump into a volcano, because "obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out."


----------



## Matafuego (Oct 9, 2004)

And what about Baleful Polymorphing a sword?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Oct 9, 2004)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 9, 2004)

Nifft said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 9, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> 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...?



			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 9, 2004)

...

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 (Oct 9, 2004)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 9, 2004)

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

When they (the authors) say 



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *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 (Oct 9, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 9, 2004)

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 (Oct 9, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## green slime (Oct 9, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 9, 2004)

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 (Oct 9, 2004)

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 (Oct 9, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2004)

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.
> 
> ...




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 (Oct 10, 2004)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 10, 2004)

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 (Oct 10, 2004)

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 (Oct 10, 2004)

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 (May 31, 2015)

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)


----------



## Ranes (May 31, 2015)

Welcome to the boards… and a concept commonly referred to as 'thread necromancy'.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 1, 2015)

(Doh! Caught by necromancy yet again. I always fall for this. Never think to check the dates)

Whatever the OP prefers.

Personally, I'd go with yes, undead generally are affected by any attacks as normal, unless specified otherwise. With case-by-case basis to account for DM's whim.



> 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.




I don't see why not (based on my own reasoning, mind you); cockatrice turns you to unmoving stone, not the "living" stone that comprises stone golems. Again, DM preference, but personally I'd rule that yes, petrification works just fine on stone golems, earth elemental type creatures, etc.



> 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.




Again, DM preference. I think of anything that moves under its own power (including animated objects) as no longer being in the "object" category, in game terms. If it can move and attack, it's a "creature" in game terms, IMO. Or, if it's subject to the rules for attacks against objects, it's an object. If it's got saving throws and hit points and a MM (or spell) entry, it's a creature.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 1, 2015)

Nightglow998 said:


> lesh to.stone does not actually harm the creature it is affecting.




Do we have to get all fiddly with the definition of "harm"?  

Note that it is not guaranteed that the creature survives the transition back to life.  I think blaming that on Stone to Flesh is kind of begging the question, rather than answering it.

Moreover, turning a creature to inanimate stone is equivalent to imprisonment *and* rendering them helpless and unable to defend themselves.  That's not generally considered "no harm, no foul".


----------



## Voadam (Jun 5, 2015)

From a flavor perspective the petrification should probably work. Meeting the gaze of a medusa or basilisk or touching a cocatrice do not seem to be effects dependent on the target being a normally living creature and so making a distinction for creatures without a con score (undead or construct) in the same way that poison or disease attacks would does not make good narrative sense.

This issue is simply based on the description of the mechanics for creatures without a con score and the fact that these attacks use a fortitude save. If the petrification was pure magic and so had to overcome the target creature's will instead of its body to cause the transformation it would clearly affect the undead under the rules.

The flavor can work to say they are unaffected, you just emphasize that the powers do not work on bodies or objects and that undead are actually dead bodies and constructs are actually objects so even though a vampire might meet a medusa's gaze it is essentially like positioning a corpse to meet the gaze and nothing happens.


----------

