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. 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)