Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pukunui 10-24-07, 03:21 AM	Hi all, Quick question: can break enchantment reverse a cockatrice's petrification ability? The spell description seems to suggest that it can but since it doesn't explicitly say so, I would really appreciate it if someone could just confirm or deny it for me. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Jonny
groveborn 10-24-07, 03:34 AM	From the SRD This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25. Cockatrices use Flesh to Stone, as the spell, which is a transmutation. As per the spell description, yes, Break Enchantment most certainly can free a stoned person.
pukunui 10-24-07, 03:46 AM	From the SRD Cockatrices use Flesh to Stone, as the spell, which is a transmutation. As per the spell description, yes, Break Enchantment most certainly can free a stoned person. OK. I didn't realize that because it doesn't say that in the monster description (all it says is that they're immune to their own petrification ability but not to the flesh to stone spell). I was pretty sure that break enchantment would work just not 100% sure. So thanks.
kuonji 10-24-07, 07:36 AM	However, dispel magic does not break Flesh to Stone, and therefore Break Enchantment will not work. From Break Enchantment: If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower Flesh to Stone's duration is instantaneous and it is a 6th level spell. From Dispel Magic: Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect
Grumman 10-24-07, 08:41 AM	Kuonji: I've got to disagree, because the Flesh to Stone spell is given as an example of the type of spell Break Enchantment can reverse. From the PHB: Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone.
RobbyPants 10-24-07, 09:01 AM	Kuonji: I've got to disagree, because the Flesh to Stone spell is given as an example of the type of spell Break Enchantment can reverse. From the PHB: Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone. Oh great. Another example where WotC couldn't keep their rulings and examples straight. I want to believe that Break Enchantment can end Flesh to Stone, but I think kuonji is right. The ruling trumps the example (unless an errata says otherwise). Also, if Break Enchantment doesn't work, what does? Obviously there's Stone to Flesh, but does a cleric have a spell that can end it?
kuonji 10-24-07, 09:20 AM	My gaming group ruled that just because flesh to stone is in the example, it's just an example, and a flawed one at that. The text description of the spell states clearly that the effect only works on 5th level and lower spells. I checked the eratta but there is no additional text in the PHB 3.5 eratta on Break Enchantment. I don't know of any core cleric spell that will remove the stone effect, short of maybe Miracle, but that's probably overkill. "Greater restoration also dispels all magical effects penalizing the creature’s abilities." I suppose being turned to stone could be considered a penalty to one's abilities, but I doubt that's the intention of the spell.
gotbrain 10-24-07, 10:35 AM	However, dispel magic does not break Flesh to Stone, and therefore Break Enchantment will not work. From Break Enchantment: If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower Flesh to Stone's duration is instantaneous and it is a 6th level spell. From Dispel Magic: Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect But it does say specifically that it can work on instantaneous effects, unlike dispel magic. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Which matches the example of flesh to stone. However i agree it seems to conflict when it then says, "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower." When such conflicts occur i always rule RAI, which in my opinion is that it DOES work on flesh to stone.
pukunui 10-24-07, 05:18 PM	Hmm ... curiouser and curiouser. Here's what the official FAQ has to say: The text on page 289 in the Dungeon Master’s Guide says a supernatural ability cannot be dispelled. Table 8–1 on the next page, however, says it can. Which one is right? If supernatural abilities cannot be dispelled, can they be removed or countered in other ways? What would happen, for example, if a medusa turns my character to stone? Can anything restore my character? The table is wrong. While you cannot dispel a supernatural ability with the dispel magic spell, you can remove or reverse its effects on an area, object (but not one in the supernatural ability user’s possession), or creature (but not the ability user itself) in other ways. For instance, the petrified victim in your example can be restored through a break enchantment spell or a stone to flesh spell. So even if break enchantment can't technically be used to reverse a flesh to stone spell, it ought to be able to reverse a cockatrice's petrification since it's technically not the flesh to stone spell (despite what groveborn seems to think) but merely a Supernatural ability with the same effect.
kuonji 10-24-07, 05:59 PM	Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. That's the fun of DnD for ya. Since the cockatrice doesn't actually use flesh to stone but a supernatural ability called Petrification, Break Enchantment might very well work. There seem to be examples to make an argument either way. In this case however, since a medusa has a higher CR then a cockatrice, I'd probably lean towards Break Enchantment working since the faq indicates such. I still stand by Break Enchantment not working on the actual spell Flesh to Stone however.
pukunui 10-24-07, 05:59 PM	In this case however, since a medusa has a higher CR then a cockatrice, I'd probably lean towards Break Enchantment working since the faq indicates such. I still stand by Break Enchantment not working on the actual spell Flesh to Stone however. Agreed.
Jaxgaret 10-24-07, 06:18 PM	Since the cockatrice doesn't actually use flesh to stone but a supernatural ability called Petrification, Break Enchantment might very well work. This is the important point here - it is absolutely not casting Flesh to Stone on the character. Even though the spell and the ability Petrification both turn targets to stone, they are in no way linked. Therefore, one must only ask if Break Enchantment would work on Petrification, not on the spell Flesh to Stone. Now, let me quote the spell Break Enchantment: This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25. If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower. If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects. In the first section that I bolded, it states that Break Enchantment will reverse the spell, curse, or effect. A character that has been Petrified is under no spell; they have the petrified status effect. Break Enchantment can indeed reverse that effect. The second section that I bolded refers to a "spell". A character that is Petrified by a Cockatrice is under no spell, as I stated before, so this section has no bearing on whether Break Enchantment can reverse a Cockatrice's Petrification. Break Enchantment also states that it reverses even Instantaneous effects, which is the last hurdle. To sum up, Break Enchantment unequivocally will work to restore a character petrified by a Cockatrice's bite attack.
ArcTan 10-24-07, 06:38 PM	The Errata documents for D&D 3.5 specifically say that in the event of a conflict, "primary sources" trump everything else. "Text trumps table" is one well-known example of this, but it also means that actual rules trump mistakes given in example text. Inflict critical wounds doesn't become a targeted spell just because spell turning seems to think it is. Flesh to stone doesn't become a 5th-level or lower spell just because break enchantment seems to think it is. This means that RAW, within core, break enchantment's actually not that useless, and kind of weird in what it does work on -- it works on reincarnate, Rary's mnemonic enhancer, and feeblemind, and, as far as I can remember, that's about it. I wouldn't be averse to removing the "Only works on 5th-level or lower" thing out just to make it more useful, perhaps including a clause that it can't actually reverse death (so that casting it on the dust from disintegrate or on a reincarnated person just gets you a dead body). I agree, though, that RAW there's no reason it can't work on Supernatural effects like a Cockatrice's petrification, which have no spell level.
pukunui 10-24-07, 06:46 PM	:w00t: Magical device that produces a break enchantment effect here I come! (I'm thinking minor artifact thingy. Or something. A scroll would just be lame and it's too high-level to fit on a wand. For dramatic purposes, I think it would be cooler if the grateful dwarves, who the PCs have just saved from a slimy doom plague, go and fetch an ancient magic device "that our people have been using for centuries to combat the effects of those obnoxious cockatrices" in order to restore the petrified PC. :D)
groveborn 10-24-07, 07:01 PM	I'm wondering if the intent of Break Enchantment's clause of not working on effects that can't be dispelled of levels 5 or lower is not the same as targeting instantaneous effects. Since you can't target an effect that doesn't exist anyway, dispel magic isn't - not - working, it's simply not a valid target to begin with. Thus it works on the instantaneous effects such as stone to flesh. Perhaps this clause is intended towards those effects that specify that one cannot dispel them? I can't think of any spells at the moment, but this is my interpretation. On a side note, while I was mistaken in the cockatrice's actual SU ability being the spell, I was trying to simplify the example for the OP anyway. Just saying.
pukunui 10-24-07, 07:27 PM	On a side note, while I was mistaken in the cockatrice's actual SU ability being the spell, I was trying to simplify the example for the OP anyway. Just saying.That's what I figured but I felt it was worth clarifying in my post anyway. :)
ArcTan 10-24-07, 07:59 PM	:w00t: Magical device that produces a break enchantment effect here I come! (I'm thinking minor artifact thingy. Or something. A scroll would just be lame and it's too high-level to fit on a wand. For dramatic purposes, I think it would be cooler if the grateful dwarves, who the PCs have just saved from a slimy doom plague, go and fetch an ancient magic device "that our people have been using for centuries to combat the effects of those obnoxious cockatrices" in order to restore the petrified PC. :D) You do realize that stone salve is a core Wondrous Item, right? And not very expensive?
pukunui 10-24-07, 08:16 PM	You do realize that stone salve is a core Wondrous Item, right? And not very expensive? 4,000gp per ounce isn't expensive? I had forgotten about that item, but I think in the context of my campaign, it may not be all that plausible. The minor artifact thingy allows me to say that once upon a time the dwarves had the means to cast stone to flesh but, while they no longer have that ability (no caster of high enough level), they still have their little artifact thing. Stone salve, on the other hand, suggests that they do have a powerful-enough caster to create such stuff (unless, of course, the ancient dwarves created a barrel's worth of the stuff and they've been slowly working their way through it or whatever.) But still, I think giving out something worth 4,000gp per ounce might be a bit too much compared to giving out a break enchantment effect. What do you think?
ArcTan 10-24-07, 09:20 PM	4,000gp per ounce isn't expensive? To effectively resurrect an unusable character, it's not bad at all. I had forgotten about that item, but I think in the context of my campaign, it may not be all that plausible. The minor artifact thingy allows me to say that once upon a time the dwarves had the means to cast stone to flesh but, while they no longer have that ability (no caster of high enough level), they still have their little artifact thing. Stone salve, on the other hand, suggests that they do have a powerful-enough caster to create such stuff (unless, of course, the ancient dwarves created a barrel's worth of the stuff and they've been slowly working their way through it or whatever.) But still, I think giving out something worth 4,000gp per ounce might be a bit too much compared to giving out a break enchantment effect. What do you think? I think that unless your players are sitting there with a copy of the DMG open figuring out the GP value of everything you give them, it doesn't really matter.
pukunui 10-25-07, 02:44 AM	To effectively resurrect an unusable character, it's not bad at all.Yes, I suppose it is comparatively inexpensive. And I suppose it wouldn't cost the creator 4,000gp per ounce to make the stuff either ... I think that unless your players are sitting there with a copy of the DMG open figuring out the GP value of everything you give them, it doesn't really matter.Not exactly ... but I do have one player who got all concerned because he assumed I didn't want NPCs of high enough level to cast even break enchantment, let alone stone to flesh, running around the campaign setting (the fairly rural and isolated Elsir Vale from Red Hand of Doom). I pointed out to him that you don't actually need a caster of the spell's level -- all you need is a scroll or wand or whatever. He's not used to playing spellcasters, so I guess he doesn't know these things. But anyway, no my players are not sitting there with the DMG in their laps, so I probably could get away with it. Thanks for your help, ArcTan.
gotbrain 10-25-07, 10:16 AM	I'm wondering if the intent of Break Enchantment's clause of not working on effects that can't be dispelled of levels 5 or lower is not the same as targeting instantaneous effects.... You mean not working on effects of levels 6 or higher right? I believe the intent is to not allow a 5th level spell to win out against 6 lvl or higher spells.
groveborn 10-25-07, 06:17 PM	Right, little mistyping there. A little more clarification though. An instantaneous effect is no longer there. The result is there, but the result has no spell level, or indeed, any level. How does one measure the level, then, to determine whether or not BE will work? I say it does, regardless of the spell's level. The limitations on it, I believe, are intended for spells with something other than instantaneous effects that disallow Dispel. Again, I won't list a bunch of spells for lack of research.
pukunui 10-25-07, 06:33 PM	Right, little mistyping there. A little more clarification though. An instantaneous effect is no longer there. The result is there, but the result has no spell level, or indeed, any level. How does one measure the level, then, to determine whether or not BE will work? I say it does, regardless of the spell's level. The limitations on it, I believe, are intended for spells with something other than instantaneous effects that disallow Dispel. Again, I won't list a bunch of spells for lack of research. Makes sense to me. Luckily for me, the situation my group is in doesn't involve a spell. :D
gotbrain 10-26-07, 10:14 AM	Right, little mistyping there. A little more clarification though. An instantaneous effect is no longer there. The result is there, but the result has no spell level, or indeed, any level. How does one measure the level, then, to determine whether or not BE will work? I say it does, regardless of the spell's level. The limitations on it, I believe, are intended for spells with something other than instantaneous effects that disallow Dispel. Again, I won't list a bunch of spells for lack of research. Exactly right.
ArcTan 10-27-07, 12:09 AM	Right, little mistyping there. A little more clarification though. An instantaneous effect is no longer there. The result is there, but the result has no spell level, or indeed, any level. How does one measure the level, then, to determine whether or not BE will work? I say it does, regardless of the spell's level. The limitations on it, I believe, are intended for spells with something other than instantaneous effects that disallow Dispel. Again, I won't list a bunch of spells for lack of research. The problem is that this effectively lets you use break enchantment to resurrect people, since disintegrate is an Instantaneous Transmutation and power word kill is an Instantaneous Enchantment. Also, it would mean that someone who'd been Bull Rushed to a particular square with telekinesis could be moved back to where he was with break enchantment. Most of the instances where you could undo high-level Instantaneous magic with break enchantment are nonsensical.
groveborn 10-27-07, 03:08 AM	Which is where we ask "Is there any ongoing, continuing, or otherwise current effect or product of effect caused" by these spells? You can't make assumptions with magic, you have to adjudicate it. What effect has disintegration left? A dead body. More over, it disintegrates a dead body. That dead body is an object when it's disintegrated, and thus can't be brought back with BE. You can end the Telekinesis effect while it's ongoing, but as it's "concentration" it can't be UNDONE. Power Word Kill likewise leaves a corpse, which by D&D rules is an object. BE targets creatures. Don't get too wrapped up in that last bit if you're thinking it shouldn't, then, work on stoned individuals, as they're exceptions and not yet dead.
ArcTan 10-27-07, 03:31 AM	Which is where we ask "Is there any ongoing, continuing, or otherwise current effect or product of effect caused" by these spells? Now you're contradicting yourself, since the point of being able to throw out the clause about 5th-level spells or lower is claiming that Instantaneous effects have nothing "ongoing" about them and therefore something caused by an Instantaneous Transmutation spell "doesn't count" as a 6th-level spell.
groveborn 10-27-07, 04:23 AM	Now you're contradicting yourself, since the point of being able to throw out the clause about 5th-level spells or lower is claiming that Instantaneous effects have nothing "ongoing" about them and therefore something caused by an Instantaneous Transmutation spell "doesn't count" as a 6th-level spell. And you're ignoring my point about those spells not being targetable.
ArcTan 10-27-07, 04:24 AM	If you don't count them as targetable, then there's very little you can use BE for anyway, by your rules. Maybe insanity (already iffy, since insanity specifically says what spells counter it and doesn't put BE on the list).
groveborn 10-27-07, 05:52 AM	If you don't count them as targetable, then there's very little you can use BE for anyway, by your rules. Maybe insanity (already iffy, since insanity specifically says what spells counter it and doesn't put BE on the list). You're right, that is iffy. I'd say that since it has a list of spells that can remove it, BE isn't on that list, it wouldn't work. Again, you don't target spells, you target a creature. If there's a spell in effect, and it can't be countered by dispel magic, then you must compare spell levels. If it's instantaneous, then you just role your level check. Unless it has a list of things that work.