My PCs are going to be fighting a tarn linnorm soon. One PC specializes in petrifying victims with flesh to stone.

Linnorms are immune to curse effects though, so I'm wondering if flesh to stone is considered a curse effect.

Furthermore, assuming flesh to stone would work, would it activate the linnorm's death curse or not?

My PCs are going to be fighting a tarn linnorm soon. One PC specializes in petrifying victims with flesh to stone.

Linnorms are immune to curse effects though, so I'm wondering if flesh to stone is considered a curse effect.

Furthermore, assuming flesh to stone would work, would it activate the linnorm's death curse or not?

Um, no, it is a spell from the transmutation school. As it stands it doesn't count as a curse effect. That doesn't mean somewhere out there there isn't a curse that creates a flesh to stone like effect. But as for you player, assuming it is through the spell, the linnorm is not immune via the immunity to curse effects.

Ravingdork wrote:

My PCs are going to be fighting a tarn linnorm soon. One PC specializes in petrifying victims with flesh to stone.

Linnorms are immune to curse effects though, so I'm wondering if flesh to stone is considered a curse effect.

Furthermore, assuming flesh to stone would work, would it activate the linnorm's death curse or not?

Um, no, it is a spell from the transmutation school. As it stands it doesn't count as a curse effect. That doesn't mean somewhere out there there isn't a curse that creates a flesh to stone like effect. But as for you player, assuming it is through the spell, the linnorm is not immune via the immunity to curse effects.

Baleful polymorph is also a transmutation spell which is also a curse effect.

If it were as easy as to determine as you seem to imply, I would not have had to ask the question.

Personally, I kinda wish the Paizo game designers had thought to create a (curse) tag for spells that identified them as curses and governed how they interacted with other such spells as break enchantment or remove curse.

Skylancer4 wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

My PCs are going to be fighting a tarn linnorm soon. One PC specializes in petrifying victims with flesh to stone.

Linnorms are immune to curse effects though, so I'm wondering if flesh to stone is considered a curse effect.

Furthermore, assuming flesh to stone would work, would it activate the linnorm's death curse or not?

Um, no, it is a spell from the transmutation school. As it stands it doesn't count as a curse effect. That doesn't mean somewhere out there there isn't a curse that creates a flesh to stone like effect. But as for you player, assuming it is through the spell, the linnorm is not immune via the immunity to curse effects.

Baleful polymorph is also a transmutation spell which is also a curse effect.

If it were as easy as to determine as you seem to imply, I would not have had to ask the question.

Personally, I kinda wish the Paizo game designers had thought to create a (curse) tag for spells that identified them as curses and governed how they interacted with other such spells as break enchantment or remove curse.

If what I am seeing is what you are referring to (PFRPG pg 556?), incorrect as the spell Baleful Polymorph is not in fact a curse like you are saying. There is however a curse that refers back to the spell under the list of curses. There is a difference. Basically they are saying here is an example of a curse, this curse transforms the target into a lizard, refer to the spell on the details of the change and we're going to call it the Baleful Polymorph Spell Curse (not exact same thing as Baleful Polymorph the spell). It is technically curse that acts like the spell. A baleful polymorph spell wouldn't be ended by a remove curse spell, but this curse that is acting like the spell would be.

Furthermore, assuming flesh to stone would work, would it activate the linnorm's death curse or not?

No, because a creature affected by flesh to stone is not dead.

Years later, and I'm still wondering if anyone really knows the answer to this.

Years later they created the [Curse] tag and I'm pretty certain that Flesh to Stone doesn't have it. So, no. Flesh to Stone is not a curse. Unless you use "Bestow Curse, Greater" to apply that effect.

Thanks, but I don't see that as a definitive answer since baleful polymorph is clearly a curse even though it does not share the curse descriptor (it's listed as a curse in the Glossary).

Baleful Polymorph can be used as a curse. That doesn't mean that every Baleful Polymorph is a curse.

Ultimate Magic Rules Update.

Neither baleful polymorph nor flesh to stone are curse effects.

Note that there is difference between colloquially used curse (magic used in ill-will) and formal game mechanical curse (curse effect) like there is a difference between colloquially used term attack (which may mean military invasion) and attack as a specific action taken. Both spells can be considered curses in informal sense but formally they are not curses.

Thanks, but I don't see that as a definitive answer since baleful polymorph is clearly a curse even though it does not share the curse descriptor (it's listed as a curse in the Glossary).

Newer books have priority over older ones. Apparently, when the curse descriptor was added it was decided that baleful polymorph should not belong to this group (which boils down to decision that it can be can't be removed with remove curse but can be dispelled).

Color me convinced. Still, I don't see why baleful polumorph, flesh to stone, and other permanent "ill-will magic" aren't considered curses.

Seems like they ought to be.

I suspect that it has a lot to do with the fact that the spells defined as curses are all significant impairments but still leave the character able to do things, whereas flesh to stone, baleful polymorph, and feeblemind all effectively remove a character's ability to act. So a "curse" spell could be used as a threat or punishment while still allowing the target to do something (the classic "you will be covered in boils until you learn courtesy" type of fable), but the other spells in question are essentially kill spells that are slightly easier to undo.

Color me convinced. Still, I don't see why baleful polumorph, flesh to stone, and other permanent "ill-will magic" aren't considered curses.

Seems like they ought to be.

Is there a reason you can't, as others have suggested, inflict those conditions using Bestow Major Curse? Because then those curses would be [Curse]s.