Flesh to Stone spell - why the poor rating

[jgsugden]

Another option would parallel Disnintegrate

6th Level
60' range
VSM
Concentratin / 10 rounds

You attempt to turn one creature that you can see within range into stone. If the target's body is made of flesh, the creature must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, it is restrained and takes 10d8 damage as its flesh begins to harden. On a successful save, the creature isn't affected.

A creature restrained by this spell must make another Constitution saving throw at the end of each of its turns. Whenever it fails a saving throw it takes 4d8 damage. If it successfully saves against this spell three times, the spell ends.

If the creature's HPs drop to zero while restrained by this spell, it is turned to stone and subjected to the petrified condition for the duration.

If the creature is physically broken while petrified, it suffers from similar deformities if it reverts to its original state.

If you maintain your concentration on this spell for the entire possible duration, a petrified creature is turned to stone until the effect is removed, but the spell ends if the creature is merely restrained.

 

[Rossbert]

A side issue becomes who cares?

It may not be an optimal spell but pick it if you like it. The ratings don't dictate spell choice. I, personally, on more than one occasion looked at a spell, saw its poor rating and grabbed it anyway because it fit my character or I liked the feel of it.

Can you do better with a sixth level slot? Yes. Do you like the idea of turning someone to stone? Take it anyway. Especially against frail, high WIS enemies, like rival casters. It becomes boring if everyone picks the same 'best' spells every time.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

A side issue becomes who cares?

It may not be an optimal spell but pick it if you like it. The ratings don't dictate spell choice. I, personally, on more than one occasion looked at a spell, saw its poor rating and grabbed it anyway because it fit my character or I liked the feel of it.

Can you do better with a sixth level slot? Yes. Do you like the idea of turning someone to stone? Take it anyway. Especially against frail, high WIS enemies, like rival casters. It becomes boring if everyone picks the same 'best' spells every time.

So I completely understand this sentiment and agree to an extent. D&D, especially 5e, is not as much about optimizing and suboptimal choices can still be fun and effective.

But I think its still a worthy pursuit to find ways for thematic and fun choices to still be effective against their mechanical peers. Settling for choices that are cool but not as effective can lead to frustration when they don't work as often or in the ways you might expect.

 

[Gadget]

A side issue becomes who cares?

The people posting in this thread seem to, for one (or more than one). Though, you are right in that many casual gamers may arguably not notice the difference. Though, in my limited anecdotal experience, these are also the types of games where it may be forgotten or glossed over that the caster needs to maintain concentration for the full 10 rounds for the effects to stick, or forget about concentration all together; or forget or gloss over some other key aspect of the spell. If they're still having fun, then more power to them! Not everyone fits

It may not be an optimal spell but pick it if you like it. The ratings don't dictate spell choice. I, personally, on more than one occasion looked at a spell, saw its poor rating and grabbed it anyway because it fit my character or I liked the feel of it.

Can you do better with a sixth level slot? Yes. Do you like the idea of turning someone to stone? Take it anyway. Especially against frail, high WIS enemies, like rival casters. It becomes boring if everyone picks the same 'best' spells every time.

I think you are quite right to not depend overmuch on others' spell ratings. And trying for perfect balance in all games and play styles is an unattainable goal. We should, as players, asses the spell based on our play style, experience, likes and dislikes, etc. I feel the debate lies in how much effort is put into making things of reasonable balance. One of the goals of this edition was to reduce the built in 'system mastery' that previous editions demanded. One of these elements of system mastery is 'trap' spell choices, choices that sound good/cool but in reality are quiet limited in effectiveness. I don't think it is too great of a burden to put on designers to balance spells with the rest of the system. Just shrugging and saying: "you can't have perfect balance" is giving the designers to much of a pass, IMHO.

Given further thought, I would revise my initial take and have the spell inflict the restrained condition immediately and force the target to spend an action on their turn to make a Con save to end the effect. This counters the argument about the spell not really does not do anything that lower level spells do (inflict the restrained condition) in that it does so without a save and forces the target to waste an action. So far this still parallels Otto's, but wait, the target becomes paralyzed if the save is failed, followed by the three failures before three success format before petrification sets in. This gives the spell a little more umf, as it inflicts a harsher condition if the initial save is failed, yet is little different than a Con based Hold Monster that is a level lower than this spell. True, the target does not end the effect with one successful save, but at one level higher, this is not too bad.

 

[Rossbert]

The people posting in this thread seem to, for one (or more than one). Though, you are right in that many casual gamers may arguably not notice the difference. Though, in my limited anecdotal experience, these are also the types of games where it may be forgotten or glossed over that the caster needs to maintain concentration for the full 10 rounds for the effects to stick, or forget about concentration all together; or forget or gloss over some other key aspect of the spell. If they're still having fun, then more power to them!

I do forget that concentration for permanence may be a concern for some people. I tend to find once you make the first 18 or so seconds of it the rest of the minute is usual trivial as combat is probably almost over.

I will admit most my uses for the spell are thematic and dramatic over the actual power of it, and often leaning (or diving) into the murky end of the alignment system.

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, the fix that truly fixes the spell, and the fix people expect...

...is for the first failed save to petrify the target.

What happens then (=how to escape it, how to make it permanent*) is something we can discuss after agreeing this is what's needed.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

For the restraining application of Flesh to Stone, what makes it better than Levitate? The restraining condition is pretty potent in several ways (especially the disadvantage to all attacks part), but the best part (locking enemies in place) you get from both spells.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

There are a couple of components to consider when comparing Levitate to Flesh to Stone. For one, there is the weight limit. A 500 lb weight limit means that only creatures roughly twice as big as humans would be affected. So giants, dragons, even large bugbears would be unaffected by the spell.

Additionally, there are restraints with space. If you are fighting in a tight space or anywhere with a ceiling, you are going to allow a creature a way of maneuvering despite the spell. This is especially true if you are fighting a creature with large tentacles. Plus there is nothing to stop it from grappling someone and continuing to attack, even if it can't run or maneuver as well as it might like. This doesn't even consider bad guys that might be spell casters with access to fly (a likely target for anything that targets a Con Save), which would completely negate the spell.

Not to mention, if done right, the Flesh to Stone spell has a chance to be effectively permanent, while Levitate will always eventually end.

Finally, the restraint condition as you mention is incredibly powerful. Target has disadvantage on attacks and Dex saves, while your allies all have advantage. That is pretty great. That is effectively -5 to all attacks the creature makes, and +5 to all attacks made against the creature.

 

[Sunseeker]

I love the older edition "Flesh to X", especially if you pick up the appropriate "Shape X" spell. Too much fun.

But in 5E, yeah it's just too each to save against.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

There are a couple of components to consider when comparing Levitate to Flesh to Stone. For one, there is the weight limit. A 500 lb weight limit means that only creatures roughly twice as big as humans would be affected. So giants, dragons, even large bugbears would be unaffected by the spell.

Additionally, there are restraints with space. If you are fighting in a tight space or anywhere with a ceiling, you are going to allow a creature a way of maneuvering despite the spell. This is especially true if you are fighting a creature with large tentacles. Plus there is nothing to stop it from grappling someone and continuing to attack, even if it can't run or maneuver as well as it might like. This doesn't even consider bad guys that might be spell casters with access to fly (a likely target for anything that targets a Con Save), which would completely negate the spell.

Not to mention, if done right, the Flesh to Stone spell has a chance to be effectively permanent, while Levitate will always eventually end.

Finally, the restraint condition as you mention is incredibly powerful. Target has disadvantage on attacks and Dex saves, while your allies all have advantage. That is pretty great. That is effectively -5 to all attacks the creature makes, and +5 to all attacks made against the creature.

I see all that, and I still think Flesh to Stone is woefully underpowered. 6th level and all. I wouldn't use it even in a 4th level spell slot, because CON is a garbage save to target.