124
edits
Changes
→Comparisons to other spells: new section
:Quite so. I removed that clause accordingly. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] ([[User talk:ThunderGod Cid|talk]]) 19:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
== Comparisons to other spells ==
Flesh to Stone is different from Temporal Stasis in a few ways. Pretty objectively, Stasis is a worse combat spell, as it requires a touch, higher level, and an expensive material component, and is dispellable. But there are many differences. Stasis has no easy counter (Stone to Flesh), and has a good amount of utility (time travel, anyone?). Perhaps most telling of all is that it makes the target immune to everything. So, yeah, I'd agree that Flesh to Stone seems more in line with the intent, but the spell begs for comparison with Stasis, given that's what the spell references.
But let's redo the comparison with FtS. This spell is three levels higher, permanent, and has a shorter range. In exchange, you get an area of multiple targets, no material component, instakills (with difficult resurrection), and some weird partial save stuff. As said, there's wide precedent for "Mass" spells to be a few levels higher. Yeah, that's fine. But then you get the weird auto-hits so a clumsy cursed colossal peasant hella range increments off with a -5 shortbow miraculously hits a subject of this spell. I don't like that. Beyond that, FtS is a save or lose. This spell is a lose or get hit with 170 cold damage and 17 rounds slow minimum, and spell resistance doesn't even prevent it all. 170 cold damage and 17 rounds of slow in an area could be a decent high level spell alone. And the spell resistance thing I don't get at all. Why, on top of everything else, does this spell have to throw the concept of SR out? SR is supposed to be like an AC; you don't take half damage from a missed attack. --[[User:Quey|Quey]] ([[User talk:Quey|talk]]) 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
