Talk:Hinder (3.5e Spell)

Over-Levelled

This is a 1st level spell, and even that's being a bit generous. - MisterSinister 09:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly as a VH spell, but since it was designed as an inverted Aid I didn't feel like re-leveling it as much as matching it to existing. It can be dropped to whatever level Aid is in any given game pretty easily. That said, do you think the duration should go back to minutes per level? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 14:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. --Foxwarrior 16:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

DS is a bit stronger a debuff than temp hit points are a buff, but since its form here requires someone to also be beating on the target I'm happy to make it last longer. So duration boosted, and balance dropped (because it's was a pretty Moderate level thing in the first place). - Tarkisflux ^Talk 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I gave Aid a true level of 1, because frankly, that's where it belongs. Additionally, all this madness about spells having balance points is straight-up weird, because none have been defined for them, and the idea that spells are balanced to anything but themselves is strange regardless - it's almost akin to saying this for class abilities, or skills, or something similar. A spell either competes with options at its level, or doesn't - and if it doesn't, the spell is underpowered, not at a different balance point. - MisterSinister 21:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Spells can have balance points in the same way that feats do. An ability can by "underpowered" for it's level and be appropriate in games where everyone is "underpowered" for their level because that is what's expected. That's basically the whole idea of balance points for anything other than classes. Giving an ability after it would be appropriate against equal CR creatures is a pretty common thing in lower balance games. The ability itself often isn't the problem, it's when it comes in the level progression or the restrictions on it that impact its performance.

As for definitions, saying none exist is ignoring the fact that we call taking a bunch of blasting spells a Moderate level tactic while taking a bunch of spells that fvcking kill people a higher balance tactic. If taking a bunch of the former makes you Moderate and taking a bunch of the latter makes you better, that seems like the former things would be Moderate themselves and the latter better. Doesn't seem like much of a logical leap there to me. Sure, there are no actual benchmarks written in right now, but we could fix that pretty easily if we wanted to.

That out of the way, I don't disagree that this would be better as a 1. It would be a 1 in my games. But I also made it to work with the existing cleric spell list, not some re-leveled one that doesn't exist on the wiki. So put it at 1 in whatever spell list you care about, I'm for it. But the actual cleric gets it at a stupid level because they have lots of spells at stupid levels, and this is where the spell it was meant to cancel out lives. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough on the level part. That being said, my relevelling project (which will be wikified one day) is designed to make balance points on spells unnecessary. That being said, my own preference is 'high rogue-low wizard', which means that for people who don't play that way, that relevelling doesn't work. Also, since when did we implement spells having balance points? I don't recall that ever being the case until about two days ago. - MisterSinister 00:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

They've always had the option to have a balance point; I've generally taken a spell's balance point to mean "if a caster from one of these classes picks only spells of this balance point or lower, they (probably) won't go above this balance point".

How would your relevelling project make balance points unnecessary if it only works for 'high rogue-low wizard'? --Foxwarrior 00:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Because I obviously consider it a superior balance point. :p No, more seriously, the way spells are levelled works almost fine in rogue-level games, and in fighter and monk-level games, you won't have people who cast spells at all. But looking at it more closely, you're probably right - it doesn't really obviate that need,

On another note - if this is indeed the case, we have a lot on non-compliant content on the wiki. Like, every single spell made by someone a lot. - 27.252.91.220 01:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ratings

	Havvy likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Yes, I am biased in that it uses DS, but ultimately, I like the fact that this ties into core material by being the antithesis to aid. It's a spell that would be a hindrance to survival, and has everything one would want in a low-level spell. No SoD effect, and it makes the fighter feel more special when he gets his attacks.

Response to Rating Criticism

You might as well ask why prepare aid or bane, it has the same answer. I acknowledge that it's weak and over leveled for a full-caster, but since I'm not redoing their spells in general I'm sticking this where it's opposite belongs. It's a weak spell that was designed to fit in with other weak spells, which should be obvious from it's balance indicator. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Aid is a far superior spell to this -- it doesn't have a chance of failure. Bane, of course, completely sucks. If I could rate SRD spells, I'd hate that one too. If this is not what ratings are supposed to accomplish, I will delete mine. Surgo 22:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying that this spell is poorly designed for its intended balance point then I think it's a completely appropriate rating. I don't agree with that entirely (I'm not really sure that it's not a Low spell in context and only put it at M to give it the benefit of the doubt), but my disagreement is not really relevant to your rating.

But if you're saying that no full caster would ever prepare it when played appropriately and thus the spell should be removed, then I would suggest that you might be letting balance preference impact your judgement inappropriately. A Hate rating is equivalent to saying "I want this off the wiki because it is terribad", but if it's a decent option for its intended balance then it's harder to make the claim that it should be removed.

Unless you don't think balance considerations should enter into ratings, in which case I'd be interested in hearing why. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Made some changes that might make things moot, but came up with an argument for considering balance in ratings that I thought I'd put down anyway.

Since one of our primary goals is to get people balanced, reviewed material that is appropriate for their game, we can't exclude the intended balance of the work when we rate. The alternative let's Ghost, for example, downrate VH material because he can't stand VH games. Or MS downrate L or M material because he thinks those games are jokes. And that sort of thing does a disservice to the material itself as well as to the users who come here looking for material in that balance range. If we consider them valid play styles as a wiki, then we have to support that in the ratings by not letting anyone downrate them for not being their preferred balance. Otherwise we make it look like there's no quality material for those users here and the whole concept of rating to weed the good from the bad fails up front.

So if you think this is a crap option for M or broken in some way, that's grounds for a hate because people who want to use M material with their clerics (because they want to make the Fighters feel nice or whatever) shouldn't take it. If you just hate it because it's not a spell that an optimized well played cleric would take, I'd argue that's not something that should be in a rating at all. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 23:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)