Talk:Fimbulvetr (3.5e Spell)
Ratings
|
Surgo favors this article and rated it 4 of 4! |
|---|---|
| I have no idea what Quey is on about. This is way more comparable to flesh to stone or flesh to ice than Temporal Stasis. Given how it's a good three levels above them (normal for a mass version of a spell), it's totally fine. |
|
Quey opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Compared to the 8th level spell, Temporal Stasis, this spell has multiple targets, no touch attack, and save partial instead of negates. And for some reason, even a peasant 10 range increments away auto hits for a kill, and the concept of spell resistance is thrown out the window. |
Comments
A comparison to flesh to stone might be more appropriate than temporal stasis, unless you want the ice to be dispelled. And the SR line is really weird. I sort of get why you're doing it, but I don't know of any other spells that work like that and I'm not sure it's appropriate. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- While I see where you're coming from with the flesh to stone comparison, it also has the added caveat of only affecting creatures made of flesh, which I think is undesirable for this spell. The SR clause is also fair, so I would be open to removing it, but at the same time I feel that giving someone complete immunity to a level 9 spell as a result of SR is rather cruel. - TG Cid (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Then just pull it and the weird "successful SR and save" line. SR: No is a perfectly valid thing to put in.
- I don't like it here, but you could do it. My problem with it is that flesh to stone, temporal stasis, and even polymorph any object allow SR (though the latter has a SR: Yes (object) line, which would work here I think). And as there aren't any other good spell comparisons to reference for an AoE form transumtation SoD spell, I'm sticking with them as a reference. Since I don't think any of them are overleveled, switching the SR value seems a powerup on top of the area and damage on save boosts. IMO, This is a fine 9 even with SR IMO. And given the numerous ways to detect SR and break it down by this level, I'm not really worried about someone getting shut down by it. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Field of Rats
It takes a bit of setup, but many things worth doing do. Even 136d6 is a lot of damage. --Foxwarrior 17:26, 9 September 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. --Quey (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- 1. Very rarely does anyone care about material components or XP components. Those things are kinda irrelevant when the wish economy can get you anything and rarely serve enough purpose to actually be factored into how good or bad a spell is.
- 2. For all the reasons you went over above, Temporal stasis is not worthy of a level 8 spell slot when you compare it to other SRD spells available at level 8 (dominate monster, greater spell immunity, symbol of insanity, etc.). It compares more favorably in level to something like flesh to stone according to the standards by which this spell was made, and as such is put at a 6 in the Time Domain.
- 3. The SR bit is fair, but the viewpoint was that a level 9 blasting spell shouldn't just be completely ignored by a creature because it has spell resistance. Just being able to say "lolno" to a very strong spell is one of the much more annoying things about blasting spells that makes them inferior to other spells. - TG Cid (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't buy the bit about material components being irrelevant. Granted, it was one of my lesser considerations, and I put in in there because I was being thorough, listing out all the differences. But it does matter in MANY aspects. While individually they may seem insignificant, together they mean a lot. Off the top of my head, there's grappling, the fact that it sets a long term limit to the number of times you can cast it (next time you have enough money AND can shop or find a possibly rare material), and the spell has an opportunity cost (could have bought Dex Gloves +2). And I don't know about your campaigns, but how or if a "wish economy" works is largely dictated by the DM. I think you undervalue XP.
- As for Temporal Stasis, like I said, it has usage beyond Flesh to Stone, as mentioned. I'm sure a clever player could find much utility in its unique effects. Sure, if you just want a normal save or lose spell, take FtS, by all means. I won't address the Time domain here, as I don't know the process that went into it, nor do I necessarily agree with its placement, but for all the reasons *I* went over? I mentioned disadvantages, but please take note of the significant advantages I mentioned, and by no means are they an exhaustive list. Heck, if you changed the description to "target ally is immune to everything", it might start looking pretty good.
- I understand the evoker's frustration with SR, but it is what it is. You kinda know that when you get into it. That said, I think this is the wrong way of fixing the perceived problem. As stated in the core rules, SR is supposed to be like an AC, so if you really want to make casters more powerful (which a lot of people on this wiki would loathe to do), I suggest giving a bonus to overcoming SR. As it stands, a failed save means SR is completely ignored. But I would not suggest changing it to SR:No, and given all I've written, I don't think "it's totally fine".--Quey (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
