| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Encounter with a basilisk ended with one PC turned to stone, and the GM rules that even with the blood from the freshly-dead basilisk, he must still make a fortitude save to survive, as per Stone to Flesh. The Basilisk's gaze ability mentions Flesh to Stone, but then mentions a creature coated with the blood is instantly restored to flesh.
My thought is that since it mentions one spell, but then simply states something is restored where is COULD have mentioned Stone to Flesh, it's a safe fix for the gaze's effects. However, the blood still killed the guy.
Thoughts?
Yeah, the blood doesn't work like stone to flesh. It just cures the basilisk stone gaze. Good for fixing a teammate after a fight, but can't be kept for another day. It doesn't mention anything about working like Stone to Flesh and thats not how I've run it, I didn't even think about it working to kill the player outright.
I agree with Mr. sin the ability of the gaze says it turns them to stone like the spell. It says nothign about turning them back. If this is the PFS scenario I would contact a VL.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was a player. Flesh to Stone says the spell restores the victim to life, and it removes the condition, but with a fort save.
The blood of the basilisk only turns the stone to flesh. It says nothing about restoring them to life, so either way the PC would have been dead.
Gaze (Ex) Turn to stone permanently (as flesh to stone), range 30 feet, Fortitude DC 15 negates. A creature petrified in this matter that is then coated (not just splashed) with fresh basilisk blood (taken from a basilisk no more than 1 hour dead) is instantly restored to flesh. A single basilisk contains enough blood to coat 1d3 Medium creatures in this manner. The save DC is Constitution-based.
This spell restores a petrified creature to its normal state, restoring life and goods.
Wait, becuase it doesn't say you return to flesh alive your willing to say they just come back dead with no save? Thats just brutal. I'm pretty sure it was meant to bring you back alive safe and sound. May as well just smash the statue and ask for a raise.
By the same logic, where does it say your dead after being hit by a flesh to stone?
I agree with MrSin. The basilisk blood thing is an obvious thing put in the game to give the players a way to recover. Rules-lawyering that away seems really mean-spirited to me.
Wait, becuase it doesn't say you return to flesh alive your willing to say they just come back dead with no save? Thats just brutal. I'm pretty sure it was meant to bring you back alive safe and sound. May as well just smash the statue and ask for a raise.
By the same logic, where does it say your dead after being hit by a flesh to stone?
There is no rule saying that being turned to stone kills you, but that fact that stone to flesh specifically returns you to life shows intent of the flesh to stone spell which is what the basilisk gaze imitates. Otherwise that clause in stone to flesh is not needed.
The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue. If the statue resulting from this spell is broken or damaged, the subject (if ever returned to its original state) has similar damage or deformities. The creature is not dead, but it does not seem to be alive either when viewed with spells such as deathwatch.
Only creatures made of flesh are affected by this spell.
The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue. If the statue resulting from this spell is broken or damaged, the subject (if ever returned to its original state) has similar damage or deformities. The creature is not dead, but it does not seem to be alive either when viewed with spells such as deathwatch.
Only creatures made of flesh are affected by this spell.
So we have a rules contradiction. Time for an FAQ. :)
I don't see a rules contradiction...the creature hit by the gaze is turned to stone as per the spell flesh to stone.
If you are covered with the basilisk blood, you are instantly restored to flesh, it does not say "you are returned to flesh as stone to flesh, so there is no rules issue and no DC is needed when you return to flesh
That's the way it is spelled out, that's the way I read it...if your opinion differs please explain where it says you follow Stone to Flesh
I am the GM in question, it made sense to me that the basilisk blood operated as Stone to Flesh. I stand by that.
Is it exactly RAW? Nope. RAW does not state what condition the stoned person returns to other than stating that they are returned to flesh. No statement if the flesh is alive or dead. Is it a possible house rule? Yup. Is it reasonable? Yup. It simply makes sense that coming back form being turned to stone is tramatic and you may not survive the process. I see no reason why Flesh to Stone has a save but basilisk blood wouldnt.
The OP (who is NOT the player that was affected) has a problem with snap judgments like this when they contradict what is perceived as the rules or non-rules.
Additionally, the player that did actually die had to only take a move action to move 5' (difficult terrain so no 5' step) and he would have never had to suffer being turned to stone to begin with. He failed to do so (despite multiple statements that the range of the basilisk gaze is 30').
This is not a PFS scenario. Ocassionally I make tweaks to monsters and the rules. I also make slight tweaks to the rules in the OPs favor. Heck, I should have her come back and list the number of house rules I have made for her character.
As for whether or not I am a killer GM. I am often considered to be TOO SOFT on my players. Heck, I should have killed the OP's character at least once and chose not to. As in, I could have killed her character outright and it would have been appropriate to do so but I chose not to.
This is the first fatality the party has had to deal with and they have the party resources to fix it. Not a big deal. It was just a bad decision on the dead player's part followed by 3 bad rolls.
- Gauss
Not that I think you'll change it, but no where does it state it functions like Stone to Flesh and Flesh to Stone specifies he isn't dead. We aren't trying to attack you. Just answer a someone's question. Your allowed to disagree and the GM of the game is going to have a say over what people on the forum say.
I would assume he would "return to flesh" the in the same condition, since you do not die when you are turned to stone
I understand that it was a snap judgment, I play in a home game and that happens quite a bit, especially when it comes down to the GM keeping the story on track.
Do not take insult here, a question was asked about the rules and was hopefully answered successfully.
In the end, you are the GM (as you well know) and have that power. I do however suggest sitting down with your group before your next session and quickly discussing how you will rule this in the future to keep everyone on the same page
|
Funny, I ran a game last night with 2 PCs being turned to stone, and the rogue (half-covered in blood already from the combat) starts to paint a mustache on the half-orc barbarian made of basilisk blood. I ruled that it momentarily made the upper lip shimmer like clean skin, which gave them the idea to coat their party-mates in blood (since the two party mates turned to stone were the only ones with knowledge skills)
Wait, when your covered in blood and 2 of your friends are effectively dead. How does facepainting get involved? I want to know this!
I don't see a rules contradiction...the creature hit by the gaze is turned to stone as per the spell flesh to stone.
If you are covered with the basilisk blood, you are instantly restored to flesh, it does not say "you are returned to flesh as stone to flesh, so there is no rules issue and no DC is needed when you return to flesh
That's the way it is spelled out, that's the way I read it...if your opinion differs please explain where it says you follow Stone to Flesh
The words "restoring life" are self explanatory. You can't restore what was never taken away.
edit:The contradiction is between the two spells in question.
One spell says you don't die. The other spell says it restores your life.
MrSin, another poster DID make a statement in this thread that could qualify as an attack stating that I was 'mean spirited'. I was addressing the thread as a whole not one particular person's comments.
In any case, I generally follow the rules (more than most GMs I know) but I do occasionally make tweaks to suit my purposes. Most of the time that works in favor of the players. Sometimes it won't. Sometimes players get upset. It happens. We move on.
In any case, most of the time these 'The GM did this!' threads do not have both sides and people jump to conclusions based on incomplete information. My purpose here was to present the other side so that you can make more informed posts. :)
- Gauss
That would have been hilarious.
My character is the only one in the group with alot of points in knowledge skills, I have a high INT and was a rogue for 5 levels so I got a TON of skill points. So something like this would be funny.
Glad to see your players playing like their characters too, I sometimes hate playing with uber experienced gamers because they tend to meta-game without thinking about it and it can kinda kill the game.
The words "restoring life" are self explanatory. You can't restore what was never taken away.
edit:The contradiction is between the two spells in question.
One spell says you don't die. The other spell says it restores your life.
There isn't two spells though...the only spell mentioned is flesh to stone. Stone to flesh is not mentioned in the description of the Gaze EX. There is no "death" so there is no "returning to life" which is why there is no mention of life or death.
EDIT:I get where you are coming from with the spells themselves though (sorry...out of my head right now). For the "life and goods" in stone to flesh I cannot see it meaning literal LIFE since the other does say that you are not dead. Seems to mean more of life being the ability to live, do things, move, breath, love, fight, and die of course.
There isn't two spells though...the only spell mentioned is flesh to stone. Stone to flesh is not mentioned in the description of the Gaze EX. There is no "death" so there is no "returning to life" which is why there is no mention of life or death.The words "restoring life" are self explanatory. You can't restore what was never taken away.
edit:The contradiction is between the two spells in question.
One spell says you don't die. The other spell says it restores your life.
I am talking about flesh to stone and stone to flesh. Those are two different spells. I am not specifying the gaze. There is no need to since it works just like the spell.
Why does that matter?
Well I am glad you asked.
The spells much like haste and slow have opposing effects. As written one spell cures an effect that does not exist so that means the "restore life" portion of one spell is in error, or the spell that says you don't die is error. Of course there could be another reason, but I have no idea what it might be.
Now one could argue that maybe there are petrification affects that kill you, and stone to flesh was made to counter those. Well the medusa attack does not say you die. Neither does the gorgon.
So I ask what is the purpose of the "restore life" phrasing?
edit:I just read your edit, but I still think it needs an FAQ. :)
I did not edit my post because someone else may need to read it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To remind people that you don't wake up dead if I had to guess.
|
|
Wait, when your covered in blood and 2 of your friends are effectively dead. How does facepainting get involved? I want to know this!
She's a Shadowkin, and her character doesn't particularly like the half-orc barbarian. They're friends in real life, but the interactions between the two on the game table are hilarious.
Wait, when your covered in blood and 2 of your friends are effectively dead. How does facepainting get involved? I want to know this!She's a Shadowkin, and her character doesn't particularly like the half-orc barbarian. They're friends in real life, but the interactions between the two on the game table are hilarious.
I'm sorry, thats just amazing to me. I was laughing when I read that. The imagery is just fantastic.
Not to self: when writing rules for an RPG, do not use flowery language to describe anything, people will take it literally.
Whats worse Ninja, they will take it literally and then argue endlessly about the meaning. :)
- Gauss
This exact issue just arose in my campaign. Two players got turned to stone last weekend. A surviving PC saw a carving in the ceiling of the basilisk's nest depicting one of the lizard's strung upside down, throat slit and blood being collected in a bucket by some dwarves (a clue installed by me as DM). So the remaining adventurers then smeared some blood on the petrified and I ruled that the part of the statue momentarily softened and became like flesh. Then they covered the statues with blood and I allowed the characters to return to flesh and I did not have them make a save (maybe because I had NOT checked the stone to flesh spell. This happened right at the end of the session so next session I could get them to make the FORT 15 save, or I could let it go. I think I will let it go ... although to be quite frank the "realism" side of me says that they should really make the save, as basically the process of stone to flesh is arduous, that's what the spell infers, and if it is arduous spell or no spell then it is STILL going to be an arduous process. Hmmmmm ... a head scratcher is this.