Hey there! I know that evocation-types became less than popular or even optimal in the 3.x evolution (and PF inherited this), however, they shouldn't HAVE to be, IMO. It's been long enough, the flaws have been pointed out, and adjustments are very well within reach.
What kind? How could blasting EVER possibly be a "good" design path again?
I'll posit the following: New Feats!
Now, I'm not sure how to rate these - "meta-magic" seems more about modifying spell levels and such, but this idea isn't exactly along those lines. If anything, it's closer to Weapon Specialization in feel/tone rather than meta-magic, but whatever - read it, and help me to shape this.
Ok, so, why not make a Feat that says something to the effect of "When casting damage dealing spells of X school (or something) you increase the damage die value by 1 size category."
So magic missile does 1d4+X, right? If you cast it and have this feat in place, it would up to 1d6+x. Fireballs? They step up to 1d8/level of damage. Basically, all of the damage-dealing spells just step up with this.
AND ... I'd suggest adding a second version of the same feat (following patterns that exist, call it "Improved X") and allow it to once again step up damage by 1 progression. That magic missile? Up to 1d8+x/missile now. Fireballs - up to 2d6/level, and so on with other spells.
So ... in any case. How would you all rate something like this? Is it a "metamagic" feat? Or more like a "reserve" feat (or something similar)?
Would it go far enough towards making the "blasters" a viable design type?
Increasing die size really doesn't help. For one thing, it's statistically the exact same as giving +1 damage per die instead (the average of 1d4+1 is 3.5, just like the average of 1d6). For another, how can damage compete with spells that end the fight in a single spell unless they can completely kill an opponent from full hit points to negatives in one spell -- and then how do you justify that to the Fighters of the world?
The problem with blasting spells isn't something that can really be fixed short of a new edition. The problem is that blasting spells haven't really changed since first edition, but hit points, both player and monster, have tripled or more. A basic D&D ancient red dragon had something like 70 hit points and was a brutally fearsome foe. A similarly powerful red dragon in Pathfinder has something like 250 or 300 hit points. But the blasting spells still do about the same amount of damage.
I played a blaster sorcerer in 3.5, and it totally kicked booty. He had the usual buffs and whatnot, but he mostly blew things up. Never felt weak.
I played a blaster sorcerer in 3.5, and it totally kicked booty. He had the usual buffs and whatnot, but he mostly blew things up. Never felt weak.
+1 I agree, never had a problem making or having a player make a good blaster. Also, if you are thinking about a blaster, remember the rules for weapon-like spells from.... either complete Arcane or Mage from 3.5. The spells that require an attack roll can crit on a nat 20 (an I as a DM allow improved crit for them... the categories are touch, and ranged touch). So you can do a lot with a balster, if you remember the spells are treated as weapon like for feats and such.
|
People spend way too much time focusing on 'optimum'. The vast majority of wizard builds in the real world (ie the people I bump into at cons and in local gaming groups, not online) are primarily blasters. It's not the most ideal wizard build because there are simply better ways out there to do the same thing. Archers are a good example and will out-damage a typical blaster.
If you want a few simple fixes to help blasters then make all blasting spells ignore SR. If you are a player your best options are to take either the elemental or draconic sorcerer bloodline, and take spell penetration and spell focus (and maybe greater spell focus) to maximize your DCs.
When people think of blasters they ignore the elephant in the room.
That elephant is summonings.
An effective blaster is someone who can continuously deal damage over time or end a fight with one big spell. Sleep is one of the most effective blaster spells out there. It's essentially a save or die at low level and on average will remove half the threats fromthe field.
You can't ignore summoning either. This is the most effective source of damage overtime there is. Celestial creatures can smite an evil foe and that smite now last the entirety of a battle. This is a massive amount of damage.
A blaster by intention contributes to the fight by reducing the enemies only finite resource, hit points, but damage isn't the only way to end a fight. If a blaster develops a God wizard mentality then they will be more effectve.
I think this is a problem that could be best solved by some full round or 1 round spells that did more damage than is currently available in standard action spells.
This would be something on level with the difference between a full attack and a standard action attack -- the standard action spell is more versatile on the bounce, but the full round would be more capable of actually delivering damage that hurts.
This way it's not just "Wizards almost always get a move action with their standard action" and blasting could be something to look into without feeling like you're going to be immediately upstaged by the fighter's standard action attack.
Perhaps some spells that do decent damage but can be used each round as a full round action so as to not feel like a single underwhelming (to me) blast eats up the slot and then is wasted if they save/have resistance/ etc. This would be like the call lightning spells but again since it takes a full round action to use each round would be more damaging.
|
I think this is a problem that could be best solved by some full round or 1 round spells that did more damage than is currently available in standard action spells.
This would be something on level with the difference between a full attack and a standard action attack -- the standard action spell is more versatile on the bounce, but the full round would be more capable of actually delivering damage that hurts.
This way it's not just "Wizards almost always get a move action with their standard action" and blasting could be something to look into without feeling like you're going to be immediately upstaged by the fighter's standard action attack.
Perhaps some spells that do decent damage but can be used each round as a full round action so as to not feel like a single underwhelming (to me) blast eats up the slot and then is wasted if they save/have resistance/ etc. This would be like the call lightning spells but again since it takes a full round action to use each round would be more damaging.
They started some of that in late 3.5 with channel line of spells where it scales depending on if you wanted to cast the spell as a swift, standard, full round or 2 round cast. They were pretty neat, but still awfully weak compared to other options. Honestly to bring blasty spells in line with other spells, you´d need to have then do at least double...probably triple the damage...but as mentioned, would make the fighters feel pretty stupid at that point. I´m okay with making good wizards being relegated to the god role so the fighter has something to do.
|
|
When people think of blasters they ignore the elephant in the room.
That elephant is summonings.
You've basically said you can blast effectively as long as you classify blasting as something other than... blasting.
Summoning is great but it's not blasting. Blasting is essentially direct damage spells.
Don't forget that spells are tougher to save against for many critters and classes depending on the spell. Also 3.x dnd has a heck of alot more defense and maneuverability spells then RC and 1E.
|
I am currently playing a Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer, and I am not feeling like blasters are sub-optimal. We're 7th level and I'm somewhat of the cannon of the group. 8d6+8 for my scorching ray usually ends up being one hell of a use for my standard action, or 7d6+7 for a fireball to damage large swaths of enemies...
Even my wizard (now deceased, but that was due to rolling a nat 3 verses Circle of Death, not for lack of AC/HP) made a good contribution to the battle by using my wand of Magic Missiles (with reckless wand wielder) for a never miss 4d4+4 (8-20) damage in any round where there wasn't anything more useful to do (grease, glitterdust, bull's strength, hold person). To be fair, he wasn't a blaster; in fact, he was the polar opposite to the blaster: The Buffer. I just wanted something else to do after I passed out my buffs
Well, I think that the blasting spells should have aftereffects or additional uses instead.
Fire - Causeing target to catch in fire (continual damage), blind/daze/dazzle foe, or heat metal and ruin flammable objects.
Ice - Make areas slippery, numb living creatures (slowed reactions could be represented by penalties or reduced speed), freeze targets in space etc.
Acid - Continual damage, aditional damage against metal objects, forming temporarily hazardous puddles on the floor, perhaps even poisoning.
Sonic - Overcome DR, deafen/shake/stun target, interact with somatic components and bardic music.
Electricity - increased effects on metal wearing targets, blind/daze/dazzle foe, bypass barriers, cause magnetism (again hampers metal users).
I'm not saying that these effects should be just added, but in the form of metamagic feats or class features they could be neat IMO and the would also support the elemental specialist archetype.
I think some more spells along the lines of Chill Touch would be neat for blasters. Imagine a spell that instead of being an attack, gives you the ability to make magical blasty attacks for a duration or a set number of attacks. A variety of spells based on this idea could help, by letting the caster use BAB, haste and such for extra attacks.
Round 1: 12th level hasted Wizard casts Laser Pointer and points at a target, shooting a laser at it.
Round 2: Wizard points three times, shooting more lasers.
Round 3: The light show goes on...
|
I think some more spells along the lines of Chill Touch would be neat for blasters. Imagine a spell that instead of being an attack, gives you the ability to make magical blasty attacks for a duration or a set number of attacks.
Something based off of the Book of Exalted Deeds / Spell Compendium spells Light of Lunia, etc. could be neat. The caster calls up an aura of power around him or above his head, and calls bursts of power from it while it remains.
Evoking a sphere of fire like a miniature sun over one's position and then unleashing scorching ray equivalent attacks every round for X rounds could be neat. Perhaps the sphere of fire would have stats like a fire elemental, and the spell could be ended by blowing up the energy sphere. Alternately, perhaps it requires a certain amount of concentration to maintain the sphere of energy, and attacks on the caster require Concentration checks, or the energy-source winks out?
Variations could involve a storm cloud (with stationary air elemental stats) over the casters head, from which he hurls lightning or a hovering globe of water (with water elemental stats) from which spears of ice launch. Having such a spell require some concentration on the part of the caster, and perhaps limit movement to no more than a 5 ft. step per round, could be a neat way to differentiate this from other types of spells, as the caster is calling up a huge sphere of energy, and doling out blasts from it over the duration. As he relentlessly advances, step by step, the hovering sphere of fire floats behind him, dishing out blasts of fire at the targets he points at.
Even Vampire the Masquerade had a spell of this sort, called Touch of Nightshade, which surrounded the vampire with a greenish aura and allowed them to hurl gouts of this 'venomous' force roughly equal to firearm damage.
We've added a housrule that benefits blasters (and warriors as well) -- when reduced to < 1/2 hp, a living creature is fatigued; when reduced < 1/4, he or she is exhausted. For simplicity in play, we just use -1 or -3 to all rolls.
This way, wounded combatants are less effective, so that damage isn't an "all-or-nothing" proposition. Area of effect blasting spells are a means of whittling down the enemy's combat ability.
The issue is not that blasting does not work, even though many posts read that way. The issue is that it is the least efficient way to do things most of the time.
Thesis 1: Wizards are extremely strong due to multiple-target save or sucks like Sleet Storm, Sleep and the like.
Thesis 2: Blasting is inferior to those spells because the damage is so-so and the other spells are far more effective.
An idea for a solution for both problems, for those that have the problem: Spell focus adds +1 damage per dice instead of +1 DC. Improved is +2 damage per dice.
I mostly play lower-level campaigns where wizards aren't as overpowered, and I like that wizards are more "manipulative" than they are death machines. It fits my taste of wizards, and my players haven't complained a lot about it. That said, we are quite far from optimizers anyway.
Thesis 3: using spells rather than melee to do damage is horribly inefficient.
//Adding a couple damage per dice (at the cost of two feats) really doesn't solve the problem.
//
The idea to change damaging spells into a duration based spell that gives the wizard the ability to cast the spell as a standard action multiple times is a really good one, imo, but would take a lot of work to tune.
Well, yeah, but that problem is what this thread is to solve, right? And it reaaaally depends on the situation. Yes, fighters are far more reliable at dealing damage than blasts is, but in some circumstances blasts are more effective. The most obvious ones would be:
1. Target is out of range. Fireball has a minimum range of 600 feet. A longbow-user takes a -10 penalty at that distance.2. Lots and lots of goons. Sometimes, the fighter is wasting his time killing the goons, wading through them towards the BBEG. They don't pose a threat to the fighter, but are in the way and pose a threat to the operation.
3. Enemy has DR. This is especially true at low levels - At level 3, you might come up against a mephit for example. It's not sure a fighter has a ranged magic weapon then, and the wizards Magic Missile or Scorching Ray might come in really handy.
And of course adding damage to the blasts would make them useful more often. At level 5, dealing 5d6 damage against 3 targets isn't that much, but 5d6+10 makes far more difference.
Save or die is the most efficient way to utilize the limited resource of magic.
Well, not necessarily, I don't think. Battlefield control and buffing is IMO the most efficient way. Treantmonk has a good breakdown on it, but basically, most enemies that you want to SoD has pretty good protection against it (in which case you might do no good at all). Putting a grease spell beneath the goons however...
And haste does wonder. Even a simple Bull's Strength will increase the meleer by a lot.
Stinking cloud is better than phantasmal killer because, a) it hits more targets, b) persists, so even if an enemy saves, they can be forced back in, and c) even if all enemies save it still has a controlling effect on the battlefield (enemies on the far side have to either run through/around and can't fire through it.) If the baddie saves vs PK, you've only managed to contribute an inconsequential amount of damage for a level 4 spell slot.
Generally speaking, stinking cloud is considered a save-or-die. Technically it's a save-or-suck, but in most cases the two are lumped together.
I haven't seen a 10th level melee character that can do 10d6 damage to multiple opponents every round yet, especially if they are spaced out. I have seen several that can do such damage (and more) to one opponent, maybe even two if the dice roll well. Post 10th level such things are easier, but at that level most blaster mages will be using the higher level spells for serious damage anyways, so as to have a higher damage cap.
At 10th level, 35 damage (with a relatively easy reflex save to reduce that to 17, plus having energy resistance apply) isn't terribly much. A barbarian can do that much to quite a few targets if he has Great Cleave or Whirlwind Attack and a reach weapon.
I haven't seen a 10th level melee character that can do 10d6 damage to multiple opponents every round yet, especially if they are spaced out. I have seen several that can do such damage (and more) to one opponent, maybe even two if the dice roll well. Post 10th level such things are easier, but at that level most blaster mages will be using the higher level spells for serious damage anyways, so as to have a higher damage cap.
At 10th level, we're talking about a DC of about 22 for a focused blaster (+5 int, +2 focus and greater focus, +3 spell level, fireball). CR8 goons at that point, will have about a 35% chance to save for half damage if reflex is their bad save. So you have 35*.65 + 17,5*.35 = ~28 average damage from a fireball (per target). That is not taking into account elemental and spell resistances, which are common. A paladin or fighter will reliably outdamage that, and that's right before they gain their third attack but exactly when many wizard spells max out (so it's a level that is in favor of wizards). A decent two-handed fighter could do about 60 dpr average unbuffed (seen in the DPR olympics, yes optimized but that was against CR10 and not CR8), so yeah, when you hit three or more enemies your blast is better. EDIT: In straight damage, it's more, that is. Dealing 60 damage to one opponent is often better than dealing 25 damage each to 3 opponents.
And I've yet to see a level 10 encounter with multiple opponents I'd want to do ~20-30 damage to. Even going all the way down to CR 5, you're looking at ~60 HP.
Depends on the GM, but sure, it's not common in run-of-the-mill campaign. At 9th level in a short campaign some months ago, we fought of a horde of trolls. While some other spells probably did more to win the encounter, the wizard had a fireball and those 7 or 8 hits for ~30 damage each (baaad ref saves) DID really pack a punch. We've also used cone of cold to efficiency against a host of newly hatched red dragons.
The problem is that, in Pathfinder, a creature is almost always exactly as dangerous at 1 hit point as it is at 1,000 hit points. Dealing 20-30 damage to a creature with more than 20-30 hit points does very little to decrease the danger your party is in compared to dealing enough damage to kill (or knock out) a creature, or doing something else to prevent it from acting. There are exceptions (dealing fire or acid damage to a troll, for example), but in general, concentration of firepower and battlefield control are far, FAR more important and more effective than dealing a little damage to a lot of creatures.
The problem is that
Agreed. Maybe the key to making blasting attractive is adding secondary effects? I could see cone of cold numbing, working as slow for 1 turn on a failed save. I could see fireball causing fear and panic in the weak-minded; any creature <5 HD failing it's save must make a will save or be shaken for 1 turn. Magic Missile might cause dazing and so on.
The problem is thatAgreed. Maybe the key to making blasting attractive is adding secondary effects? I could see cone of cold numbing, working as slow for 1 turn on a failed save. I could see fireball causing fear and panic in the weak-minded; any creature <5 HD failing it's save must make a will save or be shaken for 1 turn. Magic Missile might cause dazing and so on.
That would help in some ways, but it might hurt in others. A better solution, I think, would be something tied to current hit points compared to maximum hit points, like Kirth mentioned above. I'm still not sure that's an ideal solution (I'm worried about death spirals on PCs), but it's an easier and more comprehensive change, and it more closely addresses the true problem.
That would help in some ways, but it might hurt in others. A better solution, I think, would be something tied to current hit points compared to maximum hit points, like Kirth mentioned above. I'm still not sure that's an ideal solution (I'm worried about death spirals on PCs), but it's an easier and more comprehensive change, and it more closely addresses the true problem.
Yeah, it's something that's been missing from D&D for many, many years but I've just given up thinking about those things when it comes to playing (somewhat) regular D&D.
A quick fix that we've been playing with at low- to mid levels sometimes is "if you take damage over your con score, -2 on checks and rolls for a single turn". But that wouldn't work at high levels.
Melee = Beat them down with pointy stick
Blaster = Beat them down with magic
Save or Die = Take them out of the fight in one shotSave or die is the most efficient way to utilize the limited resource of magic.
Some people enjoy beating things down with magic.
Rider effects are nice, but can turn the game into "whoever wins initiative denies the other side their actions".
Multi-round blasting spells would be more efficient per spell but not more effective per action.
Blasting spells could benefit from feats similar to those that boost melee damage, possibly taking a drop to saves or caster level in exchange for the damage increase if they don't require an attack roll.
Adding casting stat to spell damage dice could be beneficial.
Save or die/suck could be changed to take longer to cast than blasting spells, dropping their action efficiency.
Most solutions have unintended consequences.
This post is a collection of random statements because I can.
You know, adding Kirth's suggestion to the above list seems like this would sort of cover everything that's been suggested, no? {Kirth's suggestion is that at 1/2 hp or less, you're at -1 on everything/fatigued, and at 1/4 of hp or less, you're at -3 to all/exhausted}
So ... to pick amongst these things/discuss them more is where we're at, yes?
Also, just to come back to my idea up front: one feat to give a +1 step to the damage die in "size" modifiers - like wpn damge, and then another feat to give another +1 step (generally resulting in 2d6 dmg/level). I'd think that, with 2-feats deep it would be pretty significant in investment cost, and that at the 2d6/level damage, even with the level 15 max damage cap, that's 30d6 now ... pretty significant, no?
|
|
We've added a housrule that benefits blasters (and warriors as well) -- when reduced to < 1/2 hp, a living creature is fatigued; when reduced < 1/4, he or she is exhausted. For simplicity in play, we just use -1 or -3 to all rolls.
This way, wounded combatants are less effective, so that damage isn't an "all-or-nothing" proposition. Area of effect blasting spells are a means of whittling down the enemy's combat ability.
Very cool. I always liked that in GURPS, when you got a foe to a certain stage, his fighting ability was impeded.
To my mind, the biggest issue with blasting spells is that fireballs, magic missiles and lightning bolts have not increased in effectiveness in three editions (or even had dice caps added, reducing their effectiveness). And yet the creatures one is expected to face with these spells have gone up dramatically in hit points.
A great wyrm red dragon has gone from 88 hit points, to 660 hit points, and yet that lightning bolt still does an average of 35 hit points. Hit points have increased anywhere from 'a bit' to 'eight times as much' from the days when Lolth had 66 hit points.
Blasts aren't as bad as people think, and save-or-die spells aren't as good as people think. Most save or die, or save or suck, spells target only one creature, or have a HD limit on what they can affect. They also almost always offer a saving throw. If the creature saves, it usually negates the effect entirely or reduces it to being only a minor nuisance.
For example, let's compare two popular 4th level spells, Ice Storm and Phantasmal Killer. One is a blast, the other is save-or-die. PK is popular because it's one of the lowest-level SoD spells in the game. However, it offers it's target TWO saves, success at the first negates the spell entirely, success on the 2nd (if the first fails), reduces the effect to a mere 3d6 damage, which is pitiful damage to only one creature for a 4th level spell. Only by failing both saves does the target die. Ice Storm, on the other hand, has no saving throw at all. It "only" deals 5d6 damage, but it affects a huge area (40 ft radius). So I could gamble to try and take ONE creature out of the fight instantly, or I could do a decent amount of damage to many opponents.
We could make a similar comparison between the 6th level spells Chain Lightning and Disintegrate. I could potentially deal 40d6 damage to one creature, if it fails its save, or I could deal 11d6-20d6 damage to dozens of creatures. Only those with evasion or lightning immunity can potentially ignore CL entirely. If the target of disinitegrate saves, however, he takes a mere 5d6 damage, which is pretty poor damage to one target for a 6th level spell.
People often point out one of the main weaknesses of blasts spells - reisstances and immunities. ANd this is a true problem. But the same problem also appplies to SoD and SoS spells. Creatures immune to fear are immune to Phantasmal Killer. Creatures with telepathy can even turn the effect back against the caster. Many Save or dies have fortitude saves, and alot of creatures have very good fortitude save bonuses, almost insuring that they'll make their save. Things like death ward, mind blank and others can provide powerful resistance or even complete immunity to many SoD spells. So it's hardly just blasts that suffer from this problem. A good mage can get around these problems by having a wide variety of spells.
When people compare blasts and SoD spells, they often seem to take into account the number of targets affected, saving throws, and other pertinent issues. The truth is that both types of spells can be very effective or practically useless depending on the opponent and the situation. The best mage IMO is not the one who hyper specializes in one to the exclusion of the other, but rather, the mage that takes a nice variety of spells from both categories.
Blasts aren't as bad as people think, and save-or-die spells aren't as good as people think. ....
I dont really care for either one. Battlefield control, and buffing spells seem to work well. I also like debuffers, but they generally fall into the SoS category, which means a failed save is needed. That does not mean I never use SoD or blasting spells. I think both types of spells have their moments. I just don't focus on either type exclusively.
When people compare blasts and SoD spells, they often seem to take into account the number of targets affected, saving throws, and other pertinent issues. The truth is that both types of spells can be very effective or practically useless depending on the opponent and the situation. The best mage IMO is not the one who hyper specializes in one to the exclusion of the other, but rather, the mage that takes a nice variety of spells from both categories.
Quoted the above for truth, and relevance!
I think there is FAR too much discussion based around the fringe cases vs. the "average" situation. Elemental resistances, special gear - all of this stuff is entirely circumstantial. Even the 'well CR 20's average X' are totally circumstantial. Who's to say the GM's going to hit you with a single CR 20 thing? Why not make up a significant encounter with many things at play in the field? What if the GM hit you only with classed characters? A lot of it is too circumstantial, IMO.
For my $, I say look at the core premise of how the damage works for spells in the first place, and moderate from there forward.
There *is* a problem with the DD spells, BUT they're not beyond salvation, and neither do they require outrageous damage boosting to keep pace/be competitive. What they DO need is a long hard look at what's just ... wrong in the first place.
Regarding my "feat" idea - Think of it along the same lines of class-features and fighter-only feats. It's there for the melee's as a way to GET that crazy-high DPR # they can hit, but they have to build themselves towards it. I see the same thing can apply here to mages and DD spells. I'd go one step further, though, and just BY DEFAULT make every DD spell work with a rider that says, "add +1 dmg/caster level to any damage the spell inflicts." In this way, even the casual "blast" gets a boon. But for those that really want to compete - they invest in the feats. Eventually, they could top out at +3 dmg/caster level. Pretty significant, IMO. An Evoker should change their +1/2caster levels to +1/caster level, and they can get up to a +4 dmg/caster level making them true kings of damage dealing in their arena of spells, no?
Regarding my "feat" idea - Think of it along the same lines of class-features and fighter-only feats.
I think a simple solution would be to introduce two new feats:
Improved Empowered Spell, and Greater Empowered Spell. Each feat would lower the spell slot cost by one. So for instance, a dedicated blaster would have the option to cast Empowered versions of their spells in their original spell slots for the cost of three feats. Not sure how this plays out in the big picture though (like an empowered ray of enfeeblement for instance).
Blasts aren't as bad as people think, and save-or-die spells aren't as good as people think. Most save or die, or save or suck, spells target only one creature, or have a HD limit on what they can affect. They also almost always offer a saving throw. If the creature saves, it usually negates the effect entirely or reduces it to being only a minor nuisance.
Single-target save or dies are highly circumstantial, far more than blasts I think. Save-or-sucks a bit less, but anyway. However, multiple target save-or-sucks or no-save-you-sucks are the best offensive tricks ever, and they affect more than one creature, often have either no HD limit or no save or both.
Grease, Web, Sleet Storm, Black Tentacles, there's lots of examples. In many cases, I'd pick Grease over Fireball at 5th level. They are a lot more useful in a lot more situations, since even if the target saves they often have secondary effects.
We could make a similar comparison between the 6th level spells Chain Lightning and Disintegrate. I could potentially deal 40d6 damage to one creature, if it fails its save, or I could deal 11d6-20d6 damage to dozens of creatures. Only those with evasion or lightning immunity can potentially ignore CL entirely. If the target of disinitegrate saves, however, he takes a mere 5d6 damage, which is pretty poor damage to one target for a 6th level spell.
Disintegrate needs a touch attack AND a save. It sucks as a combat spell when compared to flesh to stone.