Difference between revisions of "User talk:Slipstorm226/Arcane Idiocy (3.5e Flaw)"
(→Noticed the edit: new section) |
m (Aarnott moved page Talk:Arcane Idiocy (3.5e Flaw) to User talk:Slipstorm226/Arcane Idiocy (3.5e Flaw) without leaving a redirect: New User, community opposed page) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Ratings == | == Ratings == | ||
| + | {{Rating |rater=Ganteka Future | ||
| + | |rating=oppose | ||
| + | |reason=As pointed out by others, this... doesn't really make sense. I mean, we could like, kinda reinterpret things, but that's hardly helpful to have to change a rule a bunch just to use it as written. Also, not even sure what the entire intent here is. It also looks like it is supposed to be a trait instead. Even if this was "You take a penalty equal to double your HD total against ''confusion'', ''insanity'' and similar mind-affecting effects", that clearly quickly gets into the point of "You're now a danger to the party and that's dumb." | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{Rating |rater=Leziad | ||
| + | |rating=oppose | ||
| + | |reason=What even is that.... | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Rating |rater=Eiji-kun | {{Rating |rater=Eiji-kun | ||
|rating=oppose | |rating=oppose | ||
| Line 14: | Line 22: | ||
Also, as mentioned, flaws give bonus feats. That's part of their nature. Was this intended as a trait? -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] ([[User talk:Eiji-kun|talk]]) 04:00, 8 December 2016 (MST) | Also, as mentioned, flaws give bonus feats. That's part of their nature. Was this intended as a trait? -- [[User:Eiji-kun|Eiji-kun]] ([[User talk:Eiji-kun|talk]]) 04:00, 8 December 2016 (MST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Community Opposed in Mainspace== | ||
| + | |||
| + | What is says on the tin | ||
Latest revision as of 16:51, 27 January 2017
Ratings[edit]
|
Ganteka Future opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| As pointed out by others, this... doesn't really make sense. I mean, we could like, kinda reinterpret things, but that's hardly helpful to have to change a rule a bunch just to use it as written. Also, not even sure what the entire intent here is. It also looks like it is supposed to be a trait instead. Even if this was "You take a penalty equal to double your HD total against confusion, insanity and similar mind-affecting effects", that clearly quickly gets into the point of "You're now a danger to the party and that's dumb." |
|
|
Leziad opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| What even is that.... |
|
|
Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| I'm afraid I don't know what is going on here. What Ghost said. |
|
|
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| What are insanity effects? Since when do you spellcraft magic item creation? Bare-bones, no flavor, makes no sense. |
Noticed the edit[edit]
At least Spellcraft isn't doing mystery things to item creation. It still doesn't work, but I think I see where you are going here. A penalty on saves against confusion and insanity (pretty niche honestly) for a bonus on Spellcraft checks (and a bonus feat, more on that in a second). That's not terribly balanced. Scaling it also makes it weird, these kinds of things are typically fixed for RNG purposes, like +/- 4. Also, it doesn't make much sense with the name. Why would Arcane Idiocy make you good at Spellcraft (being smart with arcana). What does insanity have to do with being an idiot?
Also, as mentioned, flaws give bonus feats. That's part of their nature. Was this intended as a trait? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2016 (MST)
Community Opposed in Mainspace[edit]
What is says on the tin
