Talk:Pure Incendiary Cloud (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

 * It's on a spell they can't get until level 15. You could cast Heal to remove the blindness, and you've had that for 2-4 levels. You've also had access to Remove Blindness for about ten levels (even your high balance thaumaturge potentially), and if you don't have it prepped the item version of is inexpensive enough to just keep on hand for emergencies. And if curing it doesn't make any sense at the time, it's not like you couldn't drop in temporary blindsight or some other alternate sense to mitigate the penalty. I get not wanting permanent blindness in a lower level high balance game without all of those counters, but I don't see the problem at this level. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Either have a counter or DM fiat some way to ignore it" is the hallmarks of VH-level stuff; I 100% don't see permanent afflictions being in any way, shape, or form suitable for anything but VH-level abilities, regardless of the level or the counters that might eventually be found (or not, depending on the PC classes and what items the DM has let you buy/find). --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, those are the hallmarks of annoying status effects in general, regardless of duration. I don't see a functional difference in this case between "permanent", "minute per level", "until the end of the encounter", or any other non-tiny duration because the cost to remove it is so small given balance assumptions that it's not going to matter.


 * Beyond that though, permanent afflictions are 100% acceptable at higher levels in H games IMO (neither of our positions are explicitly supported by the balance range article, so IMO is what you get). Those sorts of afflictions are VH at low level when they cost you current level resources that might not be immediately on-hand, H at high level when they cost you much lower level resources and you probably have something on-hand, and are not used to any large degree in M games where access to things that could remove or mitigate them is reduced or delayed quite a lot. The argument that they might not have access to one of the half-dozen really cheap ways to mitigate this (that I can think of off-hand, there are probably a lot more) is not a strong one at this level and balance range. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Buttinski here: Am I missing something about blindness on a failed save? It says Reflex for half and "...negate the blindness". --Ganteka Future (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "All targets can make Reflex saves each round to take half damage and negate the blindness, through they are still dazzled for 1 round/level."


 * Gan is right, you guys be crazy yo. It's DAZZLING on a successful save. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I read it that way and I think Ghost did too; see "even on a failed save". His position is that a permanent blindness as an outcome at all is unacceptable (see his response), and I obviously think that's a poor position to hold given other factors. - Tarkisflux Talk 00:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, alright then. Well then, blindness/deafness says hi at level 3 and all.  Proceed. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And Ghost would probably call it a VH spell like glitterdust (and I'm not sure I'd disagree, though it's probably on the weak end). But as an "AoE blindness with damage and duration" for the cost of 5 spell levels, it's overpriced to remain at VH by enough that I"m comfortable with it being H. And that's based largely on the growth rate distinctions that are hinted at but not explicitly stated in the balance ranges (in that a sufficient delay can push it down a range), so I'm just quibbling with his position instead of something stronger. Suppose I should put in my own rating at this point actually... - Tarkisflux Talk 00:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been wanting to comment on this discussion further for a bit now but am still unable to really gather my thoughts on it in a formulated and cohesive way. Consider this all bonus grandpa ramblings. As for my earlier comment, yeah, I merely was after some clarification on the wording in Ghosty's rating. I suppose I'm in the boat of "if the counter has been available for many levels, that kinda bumps down the severity of any potential mean penalty". Calling out DM fiat has always felt kinda silly to me. DMs get final decision on anything brought to the game anyhow, and he should know what his party has access to. Basically everything is DM fiat. No access to stuff that by default should be available? That's going out of the way to increase stress on PCs... not really a benchmark of High games. After all, we're all gentlemen here... except Eiji, who is perhaps an enigma wrapped in a Snack-Pack.
 * As for the spell itself, smoke effects feel like they'd be at home here, but that's probably overkill given the choice of wording given there that would appear that once you start coughing, you can't move and eventually just pass out. Guess that's it for now.--Ganteka Future (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)