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)

Quite so. I removed that clause accordingly. - TG 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. --Quey (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)