Talk:Rebirth from Stone (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

	Undead Knave likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	I'm always a fan of interesting targets. This is the second strangest I've ever seen (second only to "One fruit tree"). The penalties are maybe a bit much, but I assume it's for use on NPCs or whatever.

	Eiji-kun likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	A weird but plot-interesting low level Stone to Flesh. Works for me.

Comments

An interesting idea this. The penalties seem to be basically negative levels that don't push you below 1 and recover naturally. It might be easier to just point at them instead and then add a wight exemption for them. Failing that, borrowing the text would also be a fair plan (it better handles your spell slot loss I think).

Do the penalties decrease in intensity by 1 every 5 days to represent the growth and recovery, or are they just totally down for about 2 months? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 19:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The wording for the penalties was indeed based on negative levels. I determined that adapting the wording was less messy than referencing it and then describing the changes.

The recoveree is indeed just totally down for about 2 months.--Ideasmith 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This spell is... wonky. I get the idea: Lower level Stone to Flesh by adding penalties, but the penalties are so random and kind of unbalanced. The name made me think this was Reincarnate to SoF's Raise Dead. I dunno about this... -- Eiji-kun (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding onto this, why is the wizard getting something which seems distinctly druid flavored? Reviving is cleric/druid's gimmick, and reincarnating even more druid. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by “random and unbalanced”. I have simplified the penalties; I hope that helps.

Flesh to stone has always been a magic-user/mage/sorcerer-wizard thing, and not available do clerics/druids; are you by chance referring to the alignment change bit? If so, you are right, and I have dropped it. Ideasmith (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

65

Btw, why 65 days? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It fit in with the other numbers. Said 'other numbers' have since been removed in simplification; this number remains due to lack of reason to change it.--Ideasmith (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)