You come across a bunch of statues that are obviously the result of a medusa's or basilisk's petrification. The PC's detect magic on the bodies of the statues or in the backpack. They remove the backpack... chisel it off the statue. They take their time to do a good job so the backpack is not harmed.
Assuming that the magic items magic still operates when petrified, here's the question ... Can the backpack have the petrification removed? Will Remove Affliction work? What other ways can the backpack be reverted back to normal and the magic item removed from it?
I was thinking that petrification turns the person and everything on the person into stone. So the remove affliction can work in reverse. But the ritual description says "... wipes away a single enduring effect afflicting the subject... All effects of the curse or other effect end.". So if there is no subject to remove the affliction from in the first place then the ritual does not work and the items can not be turned back to normal.
You come across a bunch of statues that are obviously the result of a medusa's or basilisk's petrification.The PC's detect magic on the bodies of the statues or in the backpack.They remove the backpack... chisel it off the statue. They take their tim
It doesn't look like Remove Affliction was designed to work on petrified items but on character.
As opposed to Rituals, Powers that target creatures may also target objects at the DM's discretion, and so power that can remove a condition, such as Orb of Karmic Resonance, could potentially be used on a petrified item.
Remove Affliction: The result indicates the amount of damage the character takes. Assuming the character survives, this damage can be healed normally.
It doesn't look like Remove Affliction was designed to work on petrified items but on character.As opposed to Rituals, Powers that target creatures may also target objects at the DM's discretion, and so power that can remove a condition, such as Orb
I would assume that petrification, at least via a gaze attack, only affects the person in question, not his gear. If blind targets are immune, I would assume an object, lacking eyes, would qualify as blind.
If not, Medusas would walk around petrifying trees, grass, water, air ...
I would assume that petrification, at least via a gaze attack, only affects the person in question, not his gear. If blind targets are immune, I would assume an object, lacking eyes, would qualify as blind.If not, Medusas would walk around petrifyin
I would assume that petrification, at least via a gaze attack, only affects the person in question, not his gear.
The picture on MM p.186 has the person's gear also turned to stone, and the text above it says that Female Medusas "use their gaze to turn other creatures to stone, and their lairs are filled with lifelike statues".
This is consistant with legend, related media and previous editions. Examples: 3.5e Flesh to stone: "The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue" AD&D Flesh to stone: "All possessions on the person of the creature likewise turn to stone" etc.
The picture on MM p.186 has the person's gear also turned to stone, and the text above it says that Female Medusas "use their gaze to turn other creatures to stone, and their lairs are filled with lifelike statues".This is consistant with legend, rel
"A single object that can fit in a 10-foot cube is completely repaired. The component cost is 20 percent of the item’s cost. In cases where you attempt to repair an item not on any price list, the DM determines the cost."
How about using the Make Whole ritual? "A single object that can fit in a 10-foot cube is completely repaired. The component cost is 20 percent of the item’s cost. In cases where you attempt to repair an item not on any price list, the DM deter
It doesn't look like Remove Affliction was designed to work on petrified items but on character.
That doesn't mean one couldn't use Remove Affliction on a non-character (and semantically: an item can be a 'subject')'. As a DM, I'd allow it. At worst: maybe have the caster make a skill check to get it to work.
As opposed to Rituals, Powers that target creatures may also target objects at the DM's discretion
Your statement indicates that you believe that Rituals that target creatures may not target objects at the DM's discretion. How did you conclude this?
That doesn't mean one couldn't use Remove Affliction on a non-character (and semantically: an item can be a 'subject')'. As a DM, I'd allow it. At worst: maybe have the caster make a skill check to get it to work.Your statement indicates that you bel
4e isn't designed to provide rules for things that don't require rules. This is one of those cases - use your judgment, likely with a heavy dose of "Saying Yes"
4e isn't designed to provide rules for things that don't require rules. This is one of those cases - use your judgment, likely with a heavy dose of "Saying Yes"
I would assume that petrification, at least via a gaze attack, only affects the person in question, not his gear.
The picture on MM p.186 has the person's gear also turned to stone, and the text above it says that Female Medusas "use their gaze to turn other creatures to stone, and their lairs are filled with lifelike statues".
This is consistant with legend, related media and previous editions. Examples: 3.5e Flesh to stone: "The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue" AD&D Flesh to stone: "All possessions on the person of the creature likewise turn to stone" etc.
Art is irrelevant, previous editions are irrelevant, legends are irrelevant.
The picture on MM p.186 has the person's gear also turned to stone, and the text above it says that Female Medusas "use their gaze to turn other creatures to stone, and their lairs are filled with lifelike statues".This is consistant with legend, rel
My analysis has a firm basis in the rules. An object cannot see; if you cannot see, you are blind. If you are blind, you are immune to gaze attacks. As I stated, if you'd actually care to go back and read my first post in this thread.
My analysis has a firm basis in the rules. An object cannot see; if you cannot see, you are blind. If you are blind, you are immune to gaze attacks. As I stated, if you'd actually care to go back and read my first post in this thread.
I read it, which is why I noted the part where you said "I would assume."
There aren't rules about this. There don't need to be rules about this. You inventing rules about this is your opinion and suggestion, not an actual rules answer, and that distinction should be made clear.
I read it, which is why I noted the part where you said "I would assume."There aren't rules about this. There don't need to be rules about this. You inventing rules about this is your opinion and suggestion, not an actual rules answer, and that dis
Your statement indicates that you believe that Rituals that target creatures may not target objects at the DM's discretion. How did you conclude this?
Because by strict RAW only powers that target creatures can target objects instead. not Rituals.
Of course the DM may allow anything if he want to.
RC 107 Targeting Objects: At the DM's discretion, a Power that target one or more creatures can target one or more objects, as long as the number of target does not exceed the number specified by the Power.
Because by strict RAW only powers that target creatures can target objects instead. not Rituals.Of course the DM may allow anything if he want to.
by strict RAW only powers that target creatures can target objects instead.
Right, but the writers have a tendancy to use the word "power" a bit liberally. Example: by strict RAW keywords only apply to 'powers'. This would exclude all non-powers like feats, terrain, weather, traps, events, rituals, improvised (DMG p.42) actions, etc. (ok, some of those might be powers, but not all). I don't think that was the intent. Similarly, I don't think we want to tell newcomers that those things cannot target objects.
Indeed, the 'Power' rules (PHB p.54-59) cover some major 4e concepts. Expecting those concepts to apply exclusively to 'Powers' might not be warranted. i.e. the zone rules are exclusive the power section, but many non-power effects still use zones. It's similar to how some players felt that the Actions in Combat rules (PHB p.286) didn't apply to monsters since they were written for PC's.
Of course, this is moot for the current discussion, since Remove Affliction doesn't target creatures (indeed, rituals generally don't have a 'target' line at all).
Right, but the writers have a tendancy to use the word "power" a bit liberally. Example: by strict RAW keywords only apply to 'powers'. This would exclude all non-powers like feats, terrain, weather, traps, events, rituals, improvised (DMG p.42) acti
I see no reasons to think that when the rules say ''powers'' they means any more than that.
(off-topic side discussion) Am I correct in concluding that the reasons I provided above do not seem valid to you?
Do you believe that feats, terrain, weather, traps, events, rituals and improvised actions don't have have keywords, cannot target objects, and are not subject to the PHB p.54-59 'Power' rules (like the zone rules)?
For that matter: do you feel that the Actions in Combat rules (PHB p.286) don't apply to monsters since they were written for PC's? (It's an honest question: there were several posters that previously felt this way, and I vaguely recall you being one).
(off-topic side discussion) Am I correct in concluding that the reasons I provided above do not seem valid to you?Do you believe that feats, terrain, weather, traps, events, rituals and improvised actions don't have have keywords, cannot target objec
How do you reconcile when non-powers (feats, terrain, weather, traps, events, rituals, improvised actions) use power specific terms (like targeting, zones, keywords)?
How do you reconcile when non-powers (feats, terrain, weather, traps, events, rituals, improvised actions) use power specific terms (like targeting, zones, keywords)?
They don't. At least, they shouldn't. To take traps as an example, a trap activating is a power. Feats, features, and the like specifically should not ever reference targeting, unless there is an underlying power that they key off of. Something like Lightning Field from the Lightning Fury paragon path, for example, is not a power - and does not gain any effects that would apply to powers, has no keywords, etc.
If a non-power entity is using power rules, that's an error on the part of the designer.
They don't. At least, they shouldn't. To take traps as an example, a trap activating is a power. Feats, features, and the like specifically should not ever reference targeting, unless there is an underlying power that they key off of. Something l
But they do. Many rituals refer to a 'target' (or sometimes a zone), etc. In such circumstances, I expect most DM's will use the standard rules for say, targets and zones as guidelines (even though the target and zone rules were written for powers).
But they do. Many rituals refer to a 'target' (or sometimes a zone), etc. In such circumstances, I expect most DM's will use the standard rules for say, targets and zones as guidelines (even though the target and zone rules were written for powers).
You come across a bunch of statues that are obviously the result of a medusa's or basilisk's petrification. The PC's detect magic on the bodies of the statues or in the backpack. They remove the backpack... chisel it off the statue. They take their time to do a good job so the backpack is not harmed.
There are no particular rules for un-petrifying objects, as (as far as I know) nothing in the rules say that objects can or cannot become petrified. The simplest solution, however, would be just to say that they cast Remove Affliction on the entire statue, reverting the creature and all its gear (assuming you subscribe to the theory that it was turned to stone as well) back to its original state. Personally, if they just wanted to un-petrify the backpack I'd just handwave it to work simply to avoid the above debate on the whole issue of whether or not powers and other things work on objects and whether objects can become petrified at all.
There are no particular rules for un-petrifying objects, as (as far as I know) nothing in the rules say that objects can or cannot become petrified. The simplest solution, however, would be just to say that they cast Remove Affliction on the entire s
