Talk:Force Armor (5e Spell)

To whoever keeps removing the At Higher levels section of this spell, the original version of this spell is supposed to have that feature. That probably means that its original creator used the spell that way in their game and that's how they wanted to post it. Stop editing a page that isn't yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.16.64.85 (talk). Please sign your posts.

I removed that portion of the spell because it makes the spell too strong. Compare mage armor, an almost identical spell that doesn't provide scaling AC. SirSprinkles (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2024 (MDT)

I would argue that that's probably the reason that this spell was written like that in the first place. Regardless, the original author of the spell wrote it to be that way, so that's how their page should appear. If any player thinks it's overpowered then they can run it by their DM to see if they allow it or not. I like this spell and personally don't even think it's that overpowered when you consider some of the ridiculous hit bonuses at higher levels anyways. This website is for people to share their personal homebrew content. It doesn't necessarily have to be balanced, and again, that's why players should check with dungeon masters before using homebrew content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gafdalthegrey (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Just because the original creator intended it, that doesn't mean it must or even should stay the same, especially if that makes the content too strong. SirSprinkles (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2024 (MDT)

It's not for you to edit and it doesn't matter that it's too strong. Again, that's for players to run by their DM. This is a website for everyone's HOMEBREW CONTENT, not just content that you approve of. Nobody puts their content on here just so that big smart SirSprinkles could say "yea but I think it should be this way" and change it however you like. They put their content on here because they think it's cool and they want to share their ideas so they can be used by others. Homebrew content isn't necessarily meant to be balanced, it's meant to be there as an option. You're not everyone's DM, and you're not some ruling authority on what's balanced in D&D. Stop editing someone else's content just because you don't like it. I don't think the spell is overpowered by any means anyways, it's just there to offer a different version of the mage armor spell. So if players want this alternative to that spell then they can ASK THEIR DM if they can use this one. You don't need to edit someone else's page just to solve a problem that a dungeon master easily could. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gafdalthegrey (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

All pages on this wiki belong to the wiki as a whole, not any one user, and can be freely edited by any individual who wishes to improve the page. SirSprinkles is improving this page by bringing it in line with proper balance, thus making it actually usable in a campaign without introducing power creep. This spell is an alternative to Mage Armor in that it affects another creature instead of yourself, that's difference enough already. Additionally, your behavior in this matter is a violation of the wiki's Behavioral Policy. I am going to insist that you desist, and read through the segment on Civility again. This sort of behavior is not becoming of a member of this wiki. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2024 (MDT)

You're right, this wikis contents belong to everyone and are meant to be applicable to everyone's tables, that means not just yours too. Just because you think something is unbalanced doesn't mean other people do too. This is pure hypocrisy. Just because you wouldn't allow it at your table doesn't mean that no other DM would. I've said before, nobody on this site is a ruling authority on what's balanced in D&D. Other people might think it's fine. That's why the content should stay on here as is so people know about it and have it as an option that they can run by their DM. You act like you're making the content on here better but you're not, you're shooting it down and making it worse and mediocre, and you're limiting potential options that players might want to use. You're ruining people's fun. Tell me how it actually affects you if players at a completely separate table use abilities you don't like. It doesn't. If you think anything on this wiki is too strong, then don't use it or create another version that you think is more balanced, but don't take away options from players who you will literally never meet or be affected by. You're not game developers, you're players, of a game that has questionable balance as a whole anyways. So just let people have cool content. It's honestly kind of a free speech thing. You can't get the best ideas if you don't let all of those ideas flow and be seen. Dungeons and Dragons is everyone's game and everyone plays it differently. That's why every aspect of all the content on here should be totally open to everybody without just a few people saying what can and can't be on here the way that it was originally put on here. Players need options. Players have more fun when they have these strong options for their characters. So i'll say again: It doesn't affect you if people use these abilities, so just let people have fun with them instead of "Balancing" them (Making them incredibly mediocre) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.16.64.85 (talk). Please sign your posts.

Copying and pasting your response to multiple talk pages is redundant, and does not grant it any greater impact. At a certain point it becomes spam. Refrain from doing so, if you please, in favor of formulating a well-reasoned and logical response. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2024 (MDT)

Ight i'll do my best at a logical response: I put it on both pages because I believed it was relevant to both pages, not for any greater impact. And that wasn't meant to be a rant. That's how I genuinely feel about people doing this on this site. To counter your point on my other page about it being two against one, I don't think anybody should be doing this to the wikis content, even if some agree on the edits and some don't. Obviously just because a few people agree on something doesn't mean that everyone will. For that reason, I think that original versions of pages should stay mostly unchanged in terms of their features and functions so the people that like that content and don't have a problem with it, still have access to it. I don't think that a page should be edited unless you're making it objectively better by fixing typos/formatting errors or adding a bit of extra description that genuinely helps the page, etc. Otherwise I don't think they should be edited any further, because the relevance of those edits would be subjective. That's why I definitely don't think you should alter the effects of spells, features, and abilities, or the way that they function. By constantly nerfing content on this site you are making these features and abilities kind of mediocre at best in my opinion (that's just my subjective opinion, further proving my point that what's strong, balanced, or weak on the wiki and D&D as whole is very subjective). But more so than that, by changing them and/or marking them as unbalanced (which moves them to the bottom of the page, making them less likely to be found), you are limiting the ability of other players to find them and have access to those options by making it so they may never see the original version or the version they'd have the most fun with without digging through the revision history, or maybe they won't see the page at all because it's at the bottom of the list with the Needs Work or incomplete section. So overall, I think these edits limit player access to information and freedom to choose abilities they might want. As a user of the wiki, I feel like that's almost counter intuitive to it's purpose. I feel like the purpose of wiki pages in general is to have a wide array of information for people to use and enjoy, so we should fill our site with the widest array of d&d content possible. If you think a page is unbalanced, rather than altering it or moving it to needs work, I think a better solution would be to simply create a new page with a version that you think is more balanced. Then if the change you want to implement isn't worth creating a new page for, then it's probably not worth changing the content for everyone else who might not want it changed either. You could label it as a revised version or variant obviously to show that it's a new possibly more balanced take. That way players who come across those abilities have full access to every version they might like without being limited. If they think something is too strong then they'll see the revised version and maybe find it more usable, or if they think that the original is just fine or the variant is too weak so they'll ask their DM if they can use the new strong homebrew ability they found, and hearing your DM say yes to that is a priceless feeling that I would wish on all players. The wiki would have more pages somewhat similar to each other but it would also have more options, more content, more flow of ideas, more of all the best things about the site that make it awesome for finding content outside of official sources.

Also sorry to everyone who comes to this discussion page for the block of text but I have lots to say about this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gafdalthegrey (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

It sounds as though you have a fundamental disagreement with the way this wiki operates. While unfortunate, this is not going to cause the wiki to change its policies. This wiki strives to create pages that can be used alongside core material without overshadowing it. If one were to allow a spell, feat, weapon, subclass, or class that was strictly better than a given example from the core game, anyone who used that core material would feel cheated when someone comes along who's using the overpowered homebrew. This can happen quickly and obviously, by simply adopting something blatantly overpowered in the first place, or slowly and steadily by means of power creep, where you take something just a little stronger than core material, and then you take something just a little stronger than the first, et cetera et cetera until fireball seems weak and everyone's running around with AC in the high 30's, move speed of hundreds of feet per turn, and dealing bucketfuls of damage dice for no effort.
I was once witness to a game of D&D among young teens, where the DM, also a young teen, decided out of nowhere to grant everyone Luck Blades. Luck Blades, if you were not aware, allow you to cast the Wish spell at no cost. A player wished for it to rain Luck Blades. It did, and the campaign ended immediately, because there is nothing further that can be done when the players are quite literally swimming in Wish spells. They were level two.
Inviting power creep in any manner can and will lead to similar situations. A good homebrewer must have no tolerance for such things, even if it means they must kill one of their own projects. My first work of homebrew on this wiki was an unbalanced mess. It's deleted now, and good riddance to it. I have put it behind me and now focus on making better, more balanced and usable pages.
You speak of the priceless feeling of a DM allowing a powerful new spell or ability, disregarding that there is a price for that feeling if it later causes another player to feel overshadowed. I tell you that you do not need a spell to be overpowered in order to feel that elation, and I submit Lindwurm Conflagration (5e Spell) as an example. This spell follows the precepts laid down in the 5e Spell Design Guide, not overshadowing any other spell of its same level, but being a fun and useful option nevertheless.
I would also like to note that deriding and dismissing the actions of myself and others as 'constant nerfing' is inaccurate and unhelpful. Balance is a two-way street, and I personally have assisted in bringing certain underwhelming pages up to a standard of balance that leaves them useful and interesting options without compromising the effectiveness of any core material.
I hope that in the future you can resolve the dissonance between your beliefs and this wiki's policies. Until that time, good day. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2024 (MDT)