If a creature is under the effects of a spell that include paralyzed or retrained, does freedom of movement end the spell or merely allow the creature to ignore the paralyzed or restrained condition until freedom of movement ends, so that they become paralyzed or restrained again? If the latter, and if the creature would normally be allowed to make saves against the spell effects, should the creature continue making saves while under the effects of freedom of movement to potentially end the spell that imposes the paralyzed or restrained condition?
It does not end the spell, it merely lets them ignore the effects. Note, this will stop petrification effects that state they first become paralyzed or restrained.
It would help against something like flesh to stone, which is magical, and the petrification effect relies on the target first bring restrained.
You are quoting a house rule used in your own personal game, NOT RAW or RAI.There is no difference in the stat block between a Basilisk's petrifying gaze and the Medusa's petrifying Gaze. Hythonia is just a super powered medusa. The Gorgon is a breath attack, the Cockatrice is a bite, which at least seem less magical than a gaze attack.
When it comes to things that are not specified as magical or not magical, the DM must make the call, and petrification is very hard to explain as non-magical. This is a DM call, not a rule found anywhere in the books.
The question I always ask is would this work in an anti-magic area? A gaze attack is in my mind the definition of magic, and should fail. Frankly the breath and bite versions also seem pretty magical to me.
It would help against something like flesh to stone, which is magical, and the petrification effect relies on the target first bring restrained.
You are quoting a house rule used in your own personal game, NOT RAW or RAI.There is no difference in the stat block between a Basilisk's petrifying gaze and the Medusa's petrifying Gaze. Hythonia is just a super powered medusa. The Gorgon is a breath attack, the Cockatrice is a bite, which at least seem less magical than a gaze attack.
When it comes to things that are not specified as magical or not magical, the DM must make the call, and petrification is very hard to explain as non-magical. This is a DM call, not a rule found anywhere in the books.
The question I always ask is would this work in an anti-magic area? A gaze attack is in my mind the definition of magic, and should fail. Frankly the breath and bite versions also seem pretty magical to me.
To quote the most relevant part here, when checking whether an ability is considered magical for gameplay purposes or not...
Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
So, going through each of these points with the medusa as an example...
Is it a magic item? - Nope
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description? - Only spell mentioned is to break it, not to cause it
Is it a spell attack? - No; in fact, it isn't an attack at all
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots? - It isn't
Does its description say it’s magical? - Nowhere does a medusa's gaze say it's magical
Boom. RAW, a medusa's gaze is NOT considered magical, because the actual Sage Advice Compendium is officially considered RAW.
You have convinced me that there is more to this topic than I first thought and RAW does not support my belief.
I will however still conclude that RAI, petrification is magical. But others may disagree.
In any case, I strongly suggest you ask your DM how they want to play it rather than assume that some forms of petrification are not magic.
If your conclusion is that RAI is all petrification is magical, you clearly didn't pay attention. The intention of the rules is laid out in the full text of the SAC. It may come from the magic that infuses things in the world, like a dragon's breath, but it's not considered magical unless it states outright that it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a creature is under the effects of a spell that include paralyzed or retrained, does freedom of movement end the spell or merely allow the creature to ignore the paralyzed or restrained condition until freedom of movement ends, so that they become paralyzed or restrained again? If the latter, and if the creature would normally be allowed to make saves against the spell effects, should the creature continue making saves while under the effects of freedom of movement to potentially end the spell that imposes the paralyzed or restrained condition?
It does not end the spell, it merely lets them ignore the effects. Note, this will stop petrification effects that state they first become paralyzed or restrained.
...if those effects are magical.
In the case of the gorgon or medusa or hythonia, the petrification effect is not magical, so freedom of movement would not apply. In the case of the cockatrice, basilisk and the beholder, the petrification is magical, but ignoring the restrained condition does not prevent the second saving throw to become petrified.
It would help against something like flesh to stone, which is magical, and the petrification effect relies on the target first bring restrained.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You are quoting a house rule used in your own personal game, NOT RAW or RAI.There is no difference in the stat block between a Basilisk's petrifying gaze and the Medusa's petrifying Gaze. Hythonia is just a super powered medusa. The Gorgon is a breath attack, the Cockatrice is a bite, which at least seem less magical than a gaze attack.
When it comes to things that are not specified as magical or not magical, the DM must make the call, and petrification is very hard to explain as non-magical. This is a DM call, not a rule found anywhere in the books.
The question I always ask is would this work in an anti-magic area? A gaze attack is in my mind the definition of magic, and should fail. Frankly the breath and bite versions also seem pretty magical to me.
My main point is the obverse - that RAW does not say any petrification is mundane. RAW says nothing either way for any of the creatures.
Sage Advice Compendium link, very much related
To quote the most relevant part here, when checking whether an ability is considered magical for gameplay purposes or not...
So, going through each of these points with the medusa as an example...
Boom. RAW, a medusa's gaze is NOT considered magical, because the actual Sage Advice Compendium is officially considered RAW.
Yea I agree. The Basilisk's ability on the other hand says:
This is something that the Medusa's ability doesn't say and thus they are different.
You have convinced me that there is more to this topic than I first thought and RAW does not support my belief.
I will however still conclude that RAI, petrification is magical. But others may disagree.
In any case, I strongly suggest you ask your DM how they want to play it rather than assume that some forms of petrification are not magic.
If your conclusion is that RAI is all petrification is magical, you clearly didn't pay attention. The intention of the rules is laid out in the full text of the SAC. It may come from the magic that infuses things in the world, like a dragon's breath, but it's not considered magical unless it states outright that it is.