Suffice to say, the spell description of flesh to stone ITSELF tells you that the petrification can be reversed magically.
No it doesn't.
It simply says that "If the creature is physically broken while petrified, it suffers from similar deformities if it reverts to its original state.".
"If it reverts to its original state" doesn't imply that it is magically held in stone, although you seem to infer that.
If magic is used to turn the stone back to flesh, it is no different than using Raise Dead to bring someone back to life. The spell is changing the current material state, and no more.
If you cast Greater Restoration on a nonmagical statue, it does not turn into a person, or even a corpse. A statue of a person is not a creature, while a Petrified creature is (even while permanently Petrified). We are not talking about a nonmagical lump of stone that exists in the shape of what used to be a creature, working in the normal way that a nonmagical lump of stone works... we're talking about a creature, under the (permanent) effect of powerful magic, which is keeping its body in a form it should not be in. That stone is not stone, it is flesh that is under a magical effect which has turned it to stone. The spell description of Flesh to Stone continues to be relevant to the existence of the creature long after the spell is over, to understanding what its continued state is and how it can change, in a way that Fireball isn't after it burns someone or something.
It is very different from a corpse. There are no spells that kill you and then talk about what happens when that "effect is removed." Flesh to Stone uses that language, "effect," to describe what it does even after the spell ends.
We have a magical spell telling us explicitly in its own words that it produces an ongoing "effect," and that effect is describing something magical totally unlike how normal stone works and normal bodies work... and you're still resisting reading that "effect" to be a "magical effect"? Like, does Flesh to Stone have to literally say "until the magical effect is removed" for you to accept that it is magic? JFC....
Ah yes, a question with a possibly ambiguous answer, of course there is an argument...
I'm just going to point out that conditions are not magical effects, though they can be part of a magical effect.
If a spell or effect is instantaneous or has otherwise ended, but a condition persists, that condition is not suppressed by antimagic field. Poisoned, petrified, exhaustion, doesn't matter, none are magical.
so summary declarations aside, you also believe that a magical spell, describing its own “effect”, is not describing a “magical effect”?
It’s not that I am amazed I’m so poor at persuading people. Hearts and minds are difficult to sway on the Internet. But what’s the starting assumption that gets you out of bed in the morning STARTING from the position that an effect of a spell isn’t magic? What does “magic” mean to you if a spell that turns you to stone isn’t it? Like, burden of proof to change your views aside... why is “any effect of a spell is a magical effect” not the most reasonable position to START from, and then have the burden placed on finding a rule telling you that ISNT true? what did you read that took you from that point, and then not only introduced ambiguity into the equation, but then tipped you even further into being CERTAIN that the less intuitive position is correct? Because I just don’t see your camp as being the starting point that any reasonable English speaker would start at, so if all we have is “ambiguity,” you should still be right here with me.
JC has never said that spells don’t leave magical effects after they end. So where’s your smoking gun? Please stop just repeating conclusions to me, and point to a rule, or an English definition, or SOMETHING that gets me from A to B on this.
A bit more research into this has a couple points.
PHB on spells durations:
"Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant."
That is a very cut and dry answer for Awaken, or any instantaneous spell. Even if the spell imposes conditions, the magic is gone as soon as the spell ends, so there is nothing to dispel or suspend.
True Polymorphused to say "the transformation becomes permanent". It was later errata'd to say "The transformation lasts until dispelled", as "permanent" was considered ambiguous as to whether or not the effect was still a lingering magical effect that could be dispelled.
Flesh to stone has a clause that leans more towards the new True Polymorph wording, so I am inclined to agree that it would be suspended by Antimagic field. However, the general case that conditions imposed by spells are inherently magical and dispellable doesn't seem to hold water, especially if that spell was an Instantaneous spell.
Don't use "dispellable" as shorthand for what is being discussed here. First, Dispel Magic is a different, and far more limited, spell than Antimagic Field. Second, Antimagic Field is not trying to dispel anything, and instead "suppress" effects (or for specific applications, prevents them from taking effect, or "winks out of existence" certain creatures). A magic sword isn't "dispellable," but is suppressed. A summoned monster isn't "dispellable," but is winked out of existence. A spell that is being cast is not "dispellable," but has no effect in the field. Teleportation is not "dispellable," but fails to function. The only time "dispel" is mentioned anywhere in Antimagic Field, is to provide that it too is magic which simply does not function within its field or have any effect upon it.
Conflating Antimagic Field with Dispel Magic is insidious, for the purposes of this conversation. What's true of one has no real relevance to the other, it's a whole different ball game.
so summary declarations aside, you also believe that a magical spell, describing its own “effect”, is not describing a “magical effect”?
It’s not that I am amazed I’m so poor at persuading people. Hearts and minds are difficult to sway on the Internet. But what’s the starting assumption that gets you out of bed in the morning STARTING from the position that an effect of a spell isn’t magic? What does “magic” mean to you if a spell that turns you to stone isn’t it?
A spell that turns people into stone is magic. Of course it is. I didn't say otherwise. All I said was that stone that used to be a person is no longer under the effect of magic.
As for rules, well conditions are not described as being magical, thus they are not. And spells have a duration, after which, they end.
Now you have to prove otherwise to support your argument.
Flesh to stone has a clause that leans more towards the new True Polymorph wording, so I am inclined to agree that it would be suspended by Antimagic field. However, the general case that conditions imposed by spells are inherently magical and dispellable doesn't seem to hold water, especially if that spell was an Instantaneous spell.
The wording is similar, but true poly specifies that "the spell lasts until it is dispelled." Flesh to stone says "the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed." The spell has still ended, the effect is the petrified condition which is not inherently magical.
A spell that turns people into stone is magic. Of course it is. I didn't say otherwise. All I said was that stone that used to be a person is no longer under the effect of magic.
As for rules, well conditions are not described as being magical, thus they are not. And spells have a duration, after which, they end.
Now you have to prove otherwise to support your argument.
Spells end, but how is that relevant to the meaning of "magical effect"? Not all conditions are described as being inherently magical, but we're talking about ones that are imposed by spells (actually magical), so how is that relevant to the meaning of "magical effect"? You're talking apples and oranges here.
Okay, different approach.... what IS a magical effect, if the effect of a magical spell isn't? What "magic words" do you need to see in a description of a spell or an ability to tell you that its "effect" is indeed a "magical effect"? Because clearly, Antimagic Field suppresses "spells AND other magical effects," so you must realize that it can't be JUST active spells, right?
A spell that turns people into stone is magic. Of course it is. I didn't say otherwise. All I said was that stone that used to be a person is no longer under the effect of magic.
As for rules, well conditions are not described as being magical, thus they are not. And spells have a duration, after which, they end.
Now you have to prove otherwise to support your argument.
Spells end, but how is that relevant to the meaning of "magical effect"? Not all conditions are described as being inherently magical, but we're talking about ones that are imposed by spells (actually magical), so how is that relevant to the meaning of "magical effect"? You're talking apples and oranges here.
Okay, different approach.... what IS a magical effect, if the effect of a magical spell isn't? What "magic words" do you need to see in a description of a spell or an ability to tell you that its "effect" is indeed a "magical effect"? Because clearly, Antimagic Field suppresses "spells AND other magical effects," so you must realize that it can't be JUST active spells, right?
The issue at hand is not whether the effect in question was started by magic, its that the rules say that the magic is gone. Once a spells duration expires, the magic is gone. Of course, because this is a game, there are game effects that linger beyond the end of the magic that warrant description, that might include one or more conditions, means of curing the effect, etc..., so the game describes them, but that doesn't automatically make those game effects an "ongoing magical effect" that would be dispel-able or that would be affected by anti-magic.
Basically, a "Spell Effect" can contain magical effects and game effects that aren't magical, based on whether they occur during the spells duration (magical), or after the duration expires (non-magical game effects)
The issue at hand is not whether the effect in question was started by magic, its that the rules say that the magic is gone. Once a spells duration expires, the magic is gone. Of course, because this is a game, there are game effects that linger beyond the end of the magic that warrant description, that might include one or more conditions, means of curing the effect, etc..., so the game describes them, but that doesn't automatically make those game effects an "ongoing magical effect" that would be dispel-able or that would be affected by anti-magic.
Basically, a "Spell Effect" can contain magical effects and game effects that aren't magical, based on whether they occur during the spells duration (magical), or after the duration expires (non-magical game effects)
Source? Because poor dumb me, when I read the PHB, I get stuck on the part where it literally doesn't say that.
Duration
A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.
Once a spell's duration expires, the spell is gone. Where do you gather that "magic" is gone, or that a "magical effect" only is present where an active spell is?
As many times as you keep conflating "spell" with "magical effect," I'll keep pointing out... Antimagic Field is rather explicit that (1) spells and (2) magical effects are two different things that BOTH get suppressed.
If I were to sell a spray that kills "spiders and roaches," going on and on about how a roach isn't a spider so the spray can't work on it wouldn't be terribly helpful. Get on topic and give me a justification that doesn't come back to "but the spell is over!", and we might find some common ground, who knows.
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
The magic lasts for the spells duration because in the only example given in the rules provided by the PHB (see above), it says so.
Even if you argue that only instantaneous spells are to be treated that way, prismatic spray is an instantaneous spell that can inflict the petrified condition, over a time span that lasts beyond the spells duration. According to the PHB, the magic is only there for an instant, but the spell effect continues. Therefore, the portion of the spell effect that extends beyond that duration must not be magical, because according to the rules the magic is already gone. SAC elaborates to say that those spells can't be targeted by antimagic once cast, since there is no magic there anymore. Simply put, there is no there there.
And I'd point to "can't be dispelled," which we aren't talking about. Instantaneous duration spells can't be dispelled... because Dispel Magic only works on spells, not lingering magical effects, as the "spell" is already over (though, this is complicated by the fact that Dispel Magic can target a magical effect, and attempt to end a "spell" that is "on" that targeted effect, so.... really there was some poor editing going on it seems). See now why using "dispelled" as shorthand for what we're talking about is really really counterproductive? It doesn't MATTER that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled, because Antimagic Field doesn't dispel spells. It suppresses spells AND magical effects.
And I'd also point to the Flesh to Stone is not an instantaneous spell, so regardless of whether those work in some special way, they're off topic anyway.
And I'd point to "can't be dispelled," which we aren't talking about. Instantaneous duration spells can't be dispelled... because Dispel Magic only works on spells, not lingering magical effects, as the "spell" is already over (though, this is complicated by the fact that Dispel Magic can target a magical effect, and attempt to end a "spell" that is "on" that targeted effect, so.... really there was some poor editing going on it seems). See now why using "dispelled" as shorthand for what we're talking about is really really counterproductive? It doesn't MATTER that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled, because Antimagic Field doesn't dispel spells. It suppresses spells AND magical effects.
Yes, but only things which the game itself labels as magical effects. And again, the SAC gives you the clear limitation of this. Even in the real world, a tree can be petrified just through time and natural conditions, I hope that you don't imply that antimagic field would reverse that ? :)
Once more, you put this out "A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists." but I have to point out that the duration of the spell is not the duration of its consequences, again for instantaneous spells, the duration is instantaneous but the effects of the burn of a fireball certainly do persist.
And I'd also point to the Flesh to Stone is not an instantaneous spell, so regardless of whether those work in some special way, they're off topic anyway.
And Flesh to stone is not the only source of petrification and is besides the point of this thread, which talks about petrification in general. Of course, in the case of the spell, it has a duration, it's an ongoing magica effect as per the SAC definition and it can be both dispelled and is affected by an antimagic field.
But only during the duration...afterwards, it is no different from any other spell that has ended, the magic is gone so there are no ongoing magical effects that can be dispelled or suppressed
After playing DND since 1979, this is the first time I a posting on a forum.
WOW! What passion on this topic. Its great to see the love of the game.
My reflections I felt compelled to share are:
1) I believe the ability to instantly petrify, regardless of RAW, would be (oxymoron term here) logically magical (yes psionics fall under magic to those nit pickers like me :)).
2) Antimagic Field is an 8TH LEVEL SPELL! It has to be powerful by definition.
3) Suppressing effects is the key word. Once out of the effect, it resumes if there is still duration.
4) Also, instantaneous effects can't be dispelled or, WOW, Dispel Magic would be God tier. "I cast heal for 70 hp", the lich "I cast Dispel Magic on the Heal!" ...... NO!
Some rules as written are necessary to mechanically run the game (like stats, AC, damage, etc), but some are as intended, and best judgement should always apply to the table. In an RPG with thousands of pages its next to impossible to edit all contingencies (one of my favorite spells by the way). This is even covered in the DMG. It's great we have forums to collaborate on these occurrences.
DMing for me is about creating an entertaining arch and challenge the cast (or players) to co-operatively interact and explore the game I love so much. It's not me vs. the players (they can't win.) The game is meant for fun and imagination. Too much realism or RAW can kill the fantasy and therefore the fun. In my opinion.
Hope to meet some of you at a convention or online in the future.
Buff up and be safe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No it doesn't.
It simply says that "If the creature is physically broken while petrified, it suffers from similar deformities if it reverts to its original state.".
"If it reverts to its original state" doesn't imply that it is magically held in stone, although you seem to infer that.
If magic is used to turn the stone back to flesh, it is no different than using Raise Dead to bring someone back to life. The spell is changing the current material state, and no more.
If you cast Greater Restoration on a nonmagical statue, it does not turn into a person, or even a corpse. A statue of a person is not a creature, while a Petrified creature is (even while permanently Petrified). We are not talking about a nonmagical lump of stone that exists in the shape of what used to be a creature, working in the normal way that a nonmagical lump of stone works... we're talking about a creature, under the (permanent) effect of powerful magic, which is keeping its body in a form it should not be in. That stone is not stone, it is flesh that is under a magical effect which has turned it to stone. The spell description of Flesh to Stone continues to be relevant to the existence of the creature long after the spell is over, to understanding what its continued state is and how it can change, in a way that Fireball isn't after it burns someone or something.
It is very different from a corpse. There are no spells that kill you and then talk about what happens when that "effect is removed." Flesh to Stone uses that language, "effect," to describe what it does even after the spell ends.
We have a magical spell telling us explicitly in its own words that it produces an ongoing "effect," and that effect is describing something magical totally unlike how normal stone works and normal bodies work... and you're still resisting reading that "effect" to be a "magical effect"? Like, does Flesh to Stone have to literally say "until the magical effect is removed" for you to accept that it is magic? JFC....
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ah yes, a question with a possibly ambiguous answer, of course there is an argument...
I'm just going to point out that conditions are not magical effects, though they can be part of a magical effect.
If a spell or effect is instantaneous or has otherwise ended, but a condition persists, that condition is not suppressed by antimagic field. Poisoned, petrified, exhaustion, doesn't matter, none are magical.
so summary declarations aside, you also believe that a magical spell, describing its own “effect”, is not describing a “magical effect”?
It’s not that I am amazed I’m so poor at persuading people. Hearts and minds are difficult to sway on the Internet. But what’s the starting assumption that gets you out of bed in the morning STARTING from the position that an effect of a spell isn’t magic? What does “magic” mean to you if a spell that turns you to stone isn’t it? Like, burden of proof to change your views aside... why is “any effect of a spell is a magical effect” not the most reasonable position to START from, and then have the burden placed on finding a rule telling you that ISNT true? what did you read that took you from that point, and then not only introduced ambiguity into the equation, but then tipped you even further into being CERTAIN that the less intuitive position is correct? Because I just don’t see your camp as being the starting point that any reasonable English speaker would start at, so if all we have is “ambiguity,” you should still be right here with me.
JC has never said that spells don’t leave magical effects after they end. So where’s your smoking gun? Please stop just repeating conclusions to me, and point to a rule, or an English definition, or SOMETHING that gets me from A to B on this.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A bit more research into this has a couple points.
PHB on spells durations:
"Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant."
That is a very cut and dry answer for Awaken, or any instantaneous spell. Even if the spell imposes conditions, the magic is gone as soon as the spell ends, so there is nothing to dispel or suspend.
True Polymorph used to say "the transformation becomes permanent". It was later errata'd to say "The transformation lasts until dispelled", as "permanent" was considered ambiguous as to whether or not the effect was still a lingering magical effect that could be dispelled.
Flesh to stone has a clause that leans more towards the new True Polymorph wording, so I am inclined to agree that it would be suspended by Antimagic field. However, the general case that conditions imposed by spells are inherently magical and dispellable doesn't seem to hold water, especially if that spell was an Instantaneous spell.
Don't use "dispellable" as shorthand for what is being discussed here. First, Dispel Magic is a different, and far more limited, spell than Antimagic Field. Second, Antimagic Field is not trying to dispel anything, and instead "suppress" effects (or for specific applications, prevents them from taking effect, or "winks out of existence" certain creatures). A magic sword isn't "dispellable," but is suppressed. A summoned monster isn't "dispellable," but is winked out of existence. A spell that is being cast is not "dispellable," but has no effect in the field. Teleportation is not "dispellable," but fails to function. The only time "dispel" is mentioned anywhere in Antimagic Field, is to provide that it too is magic which simply does not function within its field or have any effect upon it.
Conflating Antimagic Field with Dispel Magic is insidious, for the purposes of this conversation. What's true of one has no real relevance to the other, it's a whole different ball game.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A spell that turns people into stone is magic. Of course it is. I didn't say otherwise. All I said was that stone that used to be a person is no longer under the effect of magic.
As for rules, well conditions are not described as being magical, thus they are not. And spells have a duration, after which, they end.
Now you have to prove otherwise to support your argument.
The wording is similar, but true poly specifies that "the spell lasts until it is dispelled." Flesh to stone says "the creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed." The spell has still ended, the effect is the petrified condition which is not inherently magical.
Spells end, but how is that relevant to the meaning of "magical effect"? Not all conditions are described as being inherently magical, but we're talking about ones that are imposed by spells (actually magical), so how is that relevant to the meaning of "magical effect"? You're talking apples and oranges here.
Okay, different approach.... what IS a magical effect, if the effect of a magical spell isn't? What "magic words" do you need to see in a description of a spell or an ability to tell you that its "effect" is indeed a "magical effect"? Because clearly, Antimagic Field suppresses "spells AND other magical effects," so you must realize that it can't be JUST active spells, right?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The issue at hand is not whether the effect in question was started by magic, its that the rules say that the magic is gone. Once a spells duration expires, the magic is gone. Of course, because this is a game, there are game effects that linger beyond the end of the magic that warrant description, that might include one or more conditions, means of curing the effect, etc..., so the game describes them, but that doesn't automatically make those game effects an "ongoing magical effect" that would be dispel-able or that would be affected by anti-magic.
Basically, a "Spell Effect" can contain magical effects and game effects that aren't magical, based on whether they occur during the spells duration (magical), or after the duration expires (non-magical game effects)
Source? Because poor dumb me, when I read the PHB, I get stuck on the part where it literally doesn't say that.
Once a spell's duration expires, the spell is gone. Where do you gather that "magic" is gone, or that a "magical effect" only is present where an active spell is?
As many times as you keep conflating "spell" with "magical effect," I'll keep pointing out... Antimagic Field is rather explicit that (1) spells and (2) magical effects are two different things that BOTH get suppressed.
If I were to sell a spray that kills "spiders and roaches," going on and on about how a roach isn't a spider so the spray can't work on it wouldn't be terribly helpful. Get on topic and give me a justification that doesn't come back to "but the spell is over!", and we might find some common ground, who knows.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I would point to the very next section:
Instantaneous
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
The magic lasts for the spells duration because in the only example given in the rules provided by the PHB (see above), it says so.
Even if you argue that only instantaneous spells are to be treated that way, prismatic spray is an instantaneous spell that can inflict the petrified condition, over a time span that lasts beyond the spells duration. According to the PHB, the magic is only there for an instant, but the spell effect continues. Therefore, the portion of the spell effect that extends beyond that duration must not be magical, because according to the rules the magic is already gone. SAC elaborates to say that those spells can't be targeted by antimagic once cast, since there is no magic there anymore. Simply put, there is no there there.
And I'd point to "can't be dispelled," which we aren't talking about. Instantaneous duration spells can't be dispelled... because Dispel Magic only works on spells, not lingering magical effects, as the "spell" is already over (though, this is complicated by the fact that Dispel Magic can target a magical effect, and attempt to end a "spell" that is "on" that targeted effect, so.... really there was some poor editing going on it seems). See now why using "dispelled" as shorthand for what we're talking about is really really counterproductive? It doesn't MATTER that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled, because Antimagic Field doesn't dispel spells. It suppresses spells AND magical effects.
And I'd also point to the Flesh to Stone is not an instantaneous spell, so regardless of whether those work in some special way, they're off topic anyway.
Try again.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Here are things the rules tell us:
Therefore: "A spell's duration is the length of time the magical effect persists."
So if it is not during the spell's duration, it is not a magical effect (unless it is cause by a non-spell effect that is described as magical).
Are there any rules that tell us otherwise?
But only during the duration...afterwards, it is no different from any other spell that has ended, the magic is gone so there are no ongoing magical effects that can be dispelled or suppressed
RE: Antimagic, Petrify, any rule actually
Greetings fellow gamers,
After playing DND since 1979, this is the first time I a posting on a forum.
WOW! What passion on this topic. Its great to see the love of the game.
My reflections I felt compelled to share are:
1) I believe the ability to instantly petrify, regardless of RAW, would be (oxymoron term here) logically magical (yes psionics fall under magic to those nit pickers like me :)).
2) Antimagic Field is an 8TH LEVEL SPELL! It has to be powerful by definition.
3) Suppressing effects is the key word. Once out of the effect, it resumes if there is still duration.
4) Also, instantaneous effects can't be dispelled or, WOW, Dispel Magic would be God tier. "I cast heal for 70 hp", the lich "I cast Dispel Magic on the Heal!" ...... NO!
Some rules as written are necessary to mechanically run the game (like stats, AC, damage, etc), but some are as intended, and best judgement should always apply to the table. In an RPG with thousands of pages its next to impossible to edit all contingencies (one of my favorite spells by the way). This is even covered in the DMG. It's great we have forums to collaborate on these occurrences.
DMing for me is about creating an entertaining arch and challenge the cast (or players) to co-operatively interact and explore the game I love so much. It's not me vs. the players (they can't win.) The game is meant for fun and imagination. Too much realism or RAW can kill the fantasy and therefore the fun. In my opinion.
Hope to meet some of you at a convention or online in the future.
Buff up and be safe.