Talk:Blindness or deafness

2nd edition spells blindness and deafness
The 2nd edition wizard's spells blindness and deafness were in 3rd edition put together to blindness/deafness, but they were distinct (also from the 2nd edition priest spell included in this article) in being illusion spells, so I am having a hard time fitting them in here. On the other hand, if create separate articles for both, they will stand alone for 2nd edition (I don't know about 1st) with no higher edition counterparts. Can anyone solve this? Thanks! Daranios (talk) 20:07, February 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try to fix it up. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:11, February 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for separating the (in older editions) wizards' from the clerics' version. I have tried to add the two 2nd edition wizard variants. Daranios (talk) 20:33, February 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * I am leaning toward making three separate spell articles for these. They have separate inventors in their history in the Realms also. If we wish to speculate, it is fun and makes sense to think that they were separate spells originally and that some later wizard found away to unify them until the final words of the casting. ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:17, April 13, 2017 (UTC)


 * I would probably vote against it, but if they have different inventors, then yes. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:59, April 13, 2017 (UTC)


 * I am actually OK with the spells being merged in the same page. The History section could mention the documented creation history of two separate spells by two different people and leave the rest to speculation, as Lhynard mentioned above (that's a pretty cool idea). That does leave a question, though: who goes in the  field in the infobox? Both? Neither? I already marked the redirect pages with their respective inventors in any case. &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 21:24, June 12, 2017 (UTC)


 * If blindness and deafness have separate inventors, and thus separate development histories, and possibly different components i they get detailed enough, then I'd rather see them as separate spells. Merging them will only create an unnecessarily parallelised article and potential ambiguity. The merged versions, like 3e's blindness/deafness can then be treated as distinct spells. It's easy to say "After 1372 DR, the blindness spell was a part of blindness/deafness.", add some See Alsos and let the reader decide. — BadCatMan (talk) 12:44, June 13, 2017 (UTC)