Talk:Zone of OSHA-Compliance (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

	STDoc favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Well balanced, well-reasoned, and mildly entertaining. I plan to slap this on my next Archivist, who will likely be a stickler for rules and regulations.

Aeturo favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!

Well lets bring this back up to Community Favorite, as promised. This spell is incredibly useful, well balanced, and I would recommend it to everyone I play with. Plus its creation makes sense. Why wouldn't someone make this spell? It's protecting you from being knocked off a cliff, hazards, and being trapped. Everything it does is so situational but the spell is so useful that I'll never make a utility mage without it.

	HiddenKnowledge dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	I believe this should be an April Fools spell as I don't believe it fits within a normal D&D game.

Luigifan18 favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!

This spell is hilarious, and it sounds quite useful, too. I can actually envision it being used; it seems really useful for saving people from being bull-rushed off cliffs, and it's also a great impromptu trap detection system. (The best part about that latter bit is that it only helps in trap detection; a rogue's still necessary to get rid of the trap, so they still have something to do.) Now that I think about it, this is also a very good counter to VFX Split and other attacks whose entire shtick is death from above. Overall, this spell is just superbly designed. I know I hand out favor ratings a little too easily (I like to think positive), but this article really deserves it. Well-done!

	Wildmage favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Safty first. I think im taking this spell with me next I wisit undermountain

	Undead Knave favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	It's important to stay compliant for everyone's safety.

	Eiji-kun favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	I love spells which have a utility that makes sense why they would make it and use it in the world. As always your writing amuses me to no end. Can this spell be affected by Permanency? It seems the sort. Anyway, great job.

Duration and Permanency

1 minute per level is a very short duration for being OSHA-compliant. It means you need to be at least level 15 to do a full 15-minute workday.

Also, Permanency needs you to say what the XP cost is, and should probably not be permanently wasted forever when committing a violent act. --Foxwarrior (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Permanency costs 500 XP per level of the spell, always. So I don't really see why that needs to be explained in depth. I see your point, though. 10 minutes per level may be better. --Sulacu (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Permanency also needs you to say what its minimum caster level is. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the workday requirements, I think this spell should last for exactly 15 minutes. No more, no less. Surgo (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2017 (MDT)

Mislabeled

This seems like an abjuration, not an evocation. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It detects things, and makes objects out of force. Think of it like a wall of force in safety rail and safety helmet form. That makes it a dual-school Divination/Evocation spell in my book. --Sulacu (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

April fools?

I was wondering, isn't this supposed to be an April Fools? --HiddenKnowledge (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2017 (MDT)

The April Fools category states that 'joke articles are still balanced and playable', so if that is the reason for your oppose then that is insufficient explanation. Please elaborate in your rating on why you think this is 'unbalanced'. --Sulacu (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2017 (MDT)

Thank you, I'll change my vote to make it more clear. --HiddenKnowledge (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2017 (MDT)

After checking the article again, I realized I missed the fact that the damage resistance was only for sources from above and I changed my vote accordingly. Thanks again for the help! --HiddenKnowledge (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2017 (MDT)

The article is funny, yes, but I don't think it deserves to be taken off the front page because you think it's too goofy. You could easily rename the spell when using it in your own campaigns as some sort of zone of safety. It keeps your allies safe from environmental hazards, which is a useful ability that's not too common and the ones that exist dont do it as well as this one. I'd rate to fix it but I'm on mobile and half asleep so I was having trouble. If you haven't changed your rating by tomorrow I'll go ahead and rate though - Aeturo (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2017 (MDT)

Hi Aeturo,
In it's current form I do believe the article to be too "goofy" to give it another rating. If you would add the April Fools template or if you make your article in a non-"goofy" way I'd be happy to change my rating. But currently this is the rating I give for the article, it's not an attack on you or your article. I really like your article otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what you mean with "If you haven't changed your rating by tomorrow I'll go ahead and rate though" but if you mean you are going to rate your own article, I'd like to point out that that is against the Rating Rules and Guidelines.

--HiddenKnowledge (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2017 (MDT)

I'm not the writer of the article. I'm defending it. Also if you like everything mechanical about the article then I do believe that that is a Neutral or a Like according to community guidelines since the article is not deficient in any way mechanically and your complaint is over a tag that is normally reserved for articles that most gloss over and would possibly prevent people from using the spell in their games. Fluffwise the spell makes a lot of sense since its something someone would create for the safety of their workplace or allies. Mechanically the spell is sound, balanced, and well put together. Point being, if your only complaint is the april fool's tag then the spell itself isn't deficient. The April Fool's tag is reserved for Joke articles but if you just remove the OSHA bit then its simply a well put together utility spell, not just a Joke. - Aeturo (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2017 (MDT)

Ah, right; sorry. I thought that was a response from Sulaca. I'm merely voting on it's CURRENT implementation. If the OSHA bit were removed my vote would certainly be different. I understand your opinion and I hope you respect mine as well. That's what the voting system is for, after all :). --HiddenKnowledge (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2017 (MDT)