User talk:Balmz/Coruscation (3.5e Invocation)

Ratings

	Ganteka Future opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	If glitterdust at will was going to be a thing, it isn't a least warlock invocation. After all the revisions it has gotten, still no, this is a terrible idea. Warlocks don't need to mimic wizards. They need to be their own thing. They also don't need to mimic wizards but better. Oppose. Get this off the main space. EDIT: Changes were made that addressed none of its problems. Oppose.

Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

At will glitterdust??? Ohohoho noooooo. I think blinding at will is even a pre-existing essence and its like Greater. Nope. EDIT: It's been changed apparently and now, ironically, is hilariously weak. Least at best; it's dazzling and thus its nothing. The "benefit" therefore is basically faerie fire in that it reveals the invisible. Moving to a dislike since it's still bad, but now for the exact opposite reason. EDIT2: It's a Least now. Welp, being sparkly + dazzle is probably enough. Neutral as promised it is. EDIT3: Looks like it has been clarified... for the worse. As stated, that would bring my rating back to oppose and so, here it is.

	Undead Knave opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	So it's Glitterdust - one of the best low level Save or Lose spells - but better, before the Wizard gets it, and at will?

	Leziad opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Glitterdust+ At-Will.... Glitterdust+ before the wizard get it. Yeah no.

Wording

It's been brought to my attention that due to the wording, it is currently actually Glitterdust but you are dazzled on a successful saved, and still blinded on a failed save while I thought it was "dazzled on a failed save". Please clarify your intent; if it's the former it's back to opposing it since it is just Super Glitterdust. If it's the latter you should say "instead of blinding, it dazzles on a failed save". -- Eiji-kun (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (MST)