Talk:Spray of the Vileplume (3.5e Equipment)

Pricing and Design

This one suffers a bit of bloat for its cost as well, along with some other design problems. The design space you're working in here with the +2 has some limiting factors. Standard action activation granting +1d6 energy damage for a +1 enhancement cost is a baked-in point of reference. Two standard actions for +2d6 energy damage for a +2 is what the system tells you that you can have. If you want to make something that's purposefully stronger than other available material, I guess you can, but these types of articles don't have balance points and you should probably let readers know that was your design intent.

The "does something on activation" action economy thing is an interesting idea, but the execution needs reevaluation. Is this really intended to hurt you and your allies when you activate your Spray of the Vileplume Warhammer? Also curious if the intent is "creature only" as it were from the wording. The scaling damage for a +X cost is a no-no as well. That idea inherently breaks your value. So does the scaling DC presented here. The extra damage should be a flat amount and the DC should be flat as well.

"The acid damage does not stack, but does extend the duration." Which acid damage? Is it the normal acid damage added by the weapon when active? Is it also the deactivation ability acid damage? Is it just the deactivation ability acid damage? Does the activation acid damage do it too? How much does it extend the duration by? That part really needs a clean up.

If you want this to better fit in, it's going to need a bit of a redesign. It's both problematic and value-skewed. It's a fine enough idea, but it needs a bit more research and time in the oven.

Corrosive should reference the Magic Item Compendium and not the Spell Compendium, that might be a copy goof. Again, "ML" for Manifester Level on this one. --Ganteka Future (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue you raised with the scaling damage is really not a problem: scaling damage and DC like this is not unheard of within the wiki, and really consistent with most of the wiki content. Obviously lower balance rating may need non scaling effects, but this is a matter beyond the specific value of the article, as balance ratings, even if not explicit, are well known among us. And the bit about breaking the link between price and benefit isn't really present either: you pay for more damage (just a small part of everything one can do in battle) by choosing not to put other enhancements on your weapon.

On the stacking acid damage: you can really get which it's referring to. Yeah, it could be specified, but does anyone could not understand really? It's just normal writing rules: unless specified you refer to the last thing you mentioned, especially if it's logically connected to the new part.

On the other parts I don't disagree. --The bluez in the dungeon (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

While I believe scaling effects on +X enhancements can work, the kind of scaling (how the DC is calculated) and the feature that scales (damage, a temporary debuff condition, the power of the debuff, a penalty) is also incredibly important and needs to be weighed carefully, given the design space of what you're attempting to create.

Weapon enhancement articles don't have balance ratings attached. Does that mean they're all balanced to each other? No. Does that mean you can go out and just purposely design something weaker or stronger than comparable material and call it good? You could, especially if you believed there was a flaw in other material and you're making a variant or something. If that's good or bad for the system is another beast altogether.

As for "The acid damage does not stack, but does extend the duration." D&D players are incredibly picky about their rules and can abuse ambiguity, intentionally or accidentally. Nipping it early when you can is best. In my previous post, me asking like 5 similar questions isn't me being bewilderingly confused in this case, it's me asking for a little clarity and being playful. It article could read "This lingering acid damage does not stack with itself, but further successful attacks against afflicted targets have the duration of this effect extended by another 3 rounds." This isn't that much longer, and is hopefully much clearer (though the author may want to phrase it differently). Assuming that is the intent, of course. I could absolutely see a PC trying to get a ruling on the current wording that just dealing any acid damage from the weapon causes the lingering damage to have its duration increased. Like, if you're going into the article to make edits, just make the edits it needs. --Ganteka Future (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

1) Agree, but I don't see a particularly intense problem with balance here. Doesn't mean it's not there but I don't think it's so egregious.

2) Agree, that's kind of what I was trying to say. But I also think that having four standard ratings allows us to put each enhancement in one of them, roughly, even if the article does not explicitly says so. Given, one not familiar with the system may not, but that's another problem.

3) I get it, but I'm convinced that reason and common rules should and do prevail against pettiness in interpretation, so the matter lies more in "is the article actually incomplete, unclear or does it leaves open loophole?" instead of "someone could try to broke this by forcing frimge meanings on it?". Having said that, your appeal to clarity is valid and has to be adressed, it's better anyway if it's clear. --The bluez in the dungeon (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, confusion!

The gimmick behind this is "take a Flaming/Frost/etc weapon" and give some benefit to tactically turn it on and off. I judged the extra versatility would bump it to +2 on average (I have no commentary on balance talks, but I don't think I am off base). Generally the idea is "small AoE to turn it on, and powerful strike or status granting strike to turn it off". On this article in particular it's a 10 ft burst out from your body, and then application of sticky acid for damage over time. I prefer scaling DCs and would run it as a global rule if need be, but I don't mind just baking it into the system. After all, the damage won't keep up: It ranges from 2d6 to 6d6 damage, and by the time you have 6d6 damage, you should be doing ~three times that amount with your spells, special abilities, or other things that scale with your level. It's also something you pay for, by expending whatever resources to get that +5 SotV weapon (+7 cost).

I don't know what you mean is it intended to hurt you and allies? You, of course not. I can spell it out if need be. As for allies... why are you activating it with allies in range? No different than hitting your ally with a Burning Hands because they're in range.

As for the secondary sticky acid effect, there's only one duration in play here and that's 3 rounds of sticky acid. This is the acid being referred to, and also the acid being referred to for the damage not stacking for multiple applications of the sticky acid. I see your clarifying sentence and may apply it (later when I have more time). -- Eiji-kun (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

While I agree the scaling DC is something that potentially should be considered, it isn't a base rule. If you want it to be a rule, write it out as a variant rule and address the issues of Str/Dex being much easier to boost than mental stats. That being said, scaling damage on an enhancement is not something that should be normalized. I don't see a problem with "tactically de/activate your flaming weapon" (even if realistically the way it will be done is deactivate on your last attack, to reactivate it on your first every other round), the scaling damage is an issue. Just stick it to 2d6. --Undead_Knave (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)