Talk:Transmogrification (3.5e Cleric Domain)

Ratings

	Eiji-kun favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Mild bias cause, well, yeah, inspired and all. That said, it's a delicious polymorph domain. The kicker to bring it to favor is the granted power, the healing/harming aspect is interesting and cool.

	Franken Kesey likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Diminished due to more personal based transmutations instead of ground breaking. Baneful Polymorph and normal Polymorph are broken spells, both need to be updated. This is an effective individualized transformation domain, which especially benefits lone-wolf mages/clerics, rogues, and actors.

What? That one of the most nonsensical rating I saw in my life. What do you mean by new stuff and viability? Are you complaining that the domain do not have enough custom spells? Because that make no sense it has almost half it spells made expressly for it. Are you complaining at the inclusion of SRD spells? What do you mean it personal instead of ground breaking? You make no sense. --Leziad (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. In addition to not knowing what the first part is even about, I have no idea what 'enough new stuff to be viable' even means for a domain. A domain is a thematic collection of spells used to represent a deity's portfolio in full or part, how is this not that? All it needs to be viable is a decent collection of representative powers, and it has that. This already has 5 custom spells for it as well, so exactly how much 'new stuff' is enough? I don't give Ghost crap for downrating because of the inclusion of mechanics he has a problem with, so I won't complain about the Poly lines here. But the rest of this rating? I call shenanigans. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 20:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Conflict. Will explain what was meant by personal vs. ground breaking. This domain only alters creature qualities - instead of topography, magic, etc. --Franken Kesey (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WTF does that even mean?

Also, I agree that SoDs and polymorph are broken. I even agree that domains should be in line with current domains (ie, suck) because the cleric is already VH with the sucky domains. That said, some people like to live in VH-land (:-/) but while I can fault them for their lack of good taste (:-P) I can't tell them what to play or how to play. It's their game. And if they want to make a really strong class even stronger, that's their shtick. If you feel it's unoriginal... well, there are a lot of feats, classes and the like that are unoriginal. But just that is a poor reason to rate an article for good or for bad. This, IMO, is a good place to revoke a rating since it doesn't make sense and is not explained well and the reasons are completely irrelevant. --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And that's enough for an oppose Kesey, enough for a "this shouldn't be on the wiki" vote? Sounds more like a dislike than a hate to me, and even that's a bit thin because your statement is one of fact, not even one of qualified preference. Yes, it only alters creatures and not other things. And this is terrible and worth removing... why exactly? You were just complaining about "this is stupid" ratings and now you're adding one to the wiki :-/. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The relevancy of the rating was to depict that this article was weak on the transmutation. A single opposed rating does not remove a work from the main nav. And as has been enumerated before, a rating can be rated on preference based on if the rater likes or dislikes an article. The reasoning behind a rating needs to be mentioned – as has been done above. The comments on the rating page refer to this not being mention implicitly.

The rating will be improved if baneful and normal polymorph were changed, or given other mechanics on this page.--Franken Kesey (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Analogy Fun Time: Cleric domains are now the sandwiches on a menu for a restaurant that only makes sandwiches. You've got a coupon for a free sandwich. You get a ham on rye. You eat it and say "This is disgusting because it's not a BLT. They used nasty miracle whip." Your friend says "Of course it's not a BLT, it's a ham on rye. Also, what's nasty about the miracle whip?". You reply "I want a BLT not a ham on rye. Miracle whip is nasty. It tastes like other sandwiches I've had."

Judge it based on what it was designed to be and if it meets those goals rather than what you thought it was gonna be or would have rather gotten. Saying "this is bad" is not an explanation.--Ganteka Future (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Kesey, go back to the ratings page and read what it says under oppose. You are saying that this is so bad it deserves to be removed from nav, whether that will actually happen or not with your vote is irrelevant.

As for being weak on transmutation... well, it's not transmutation is it? It's transmogrophy. It's a transmutation like domain that is explicitly focused on the transmutation of creatures. It's in the fluff, it's in the domain power (which only affects creatures), and it's in the spell selection. Your complaint that it doesn't do what it's not intended to do is nonsensical. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 23:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

See now that some changes were made to definitions. Changed to dislike (for the same reasons). Oppose use to be: dislike more. Expect that many other ratings will now need to be rebalanced. Might advice adding a notice whenever such a major change to definitions is done again.

Umm, what? That's been the basic text on oppose / hate since the scale was voted up and the option was written up two years ago. And I do complain at people who oppose things that tehy don't actually want removed from the nav, it just doesn't happen very often. The opposite, favoring things you don't want to see on the front page, also doesn't happen all that often (and complaining at them for that seems more petty). In any event, it's been softened to a dislike which seems fitting with the personal preference claim, and plenty of people dislike things for reasons I don't agree with, so I'm done here. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 23:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Author Response

Alright, I'm gonna hold off on blatant admin power here (for a bit anyways) because I'm the author and prefer not to give the impression of unfairness in how I handle down-rated ratings against my own articles. Franken Kesey, just yesterday you posted some concern about articles with unjustified ratings. Please, read Dungeons and Dragons Wiki:Rating Articles. It's been updated fairly recently, so a reread wouldn't hurt either. Now, we're not exactly sticklers for rules here, allowing some leeway because we do this as a hobby and probably some of us are chaotically inclined.

Now for some backstory. A couple weeks back Eiji sent me a message in a sleep-deprived manic-state (so, how he is normally, badum tsch!) asking if I would get on a domain focusing on polymorph spells. So, while he slept I began researching and brainstorming what would be appropriate for clerics, what was already used by divine casters, some ideas on where to focus and some possible spell effects. Many hours later, he contacts me again. Turns out he found what he was looking for as he had already written it himself and forgot about it, which I suppose is bound to happen when you have over 2,000 articles of your own, the whole wiki and dozens of books to check through. Well, I sent him my ideas and we decided that I should just go ahead and make a new domain anyways rather than let what I had go to waste.

The domain's focus was squared in on "changing yourself and other living creatures with buffs and debuffs while maintaining a mild divine flavor". This meant only Transmutation spells and that meant an iconic low-level "you look different now" spell was out (being both self-targeted and an Illusion, disguise self). Despite being a self-only spell, alter self got to stay on the list a bit to my chagrin (it made sense to include based on already being in the game world and is essentially a lower level self-only polymorph spell). New spells had to be placed in these domain slots without stepping on the toes of what was already available, hence the similar names for a few of these spells (disguise form and alter form mainly). These spells are designed to fit into a game where their counterparts still exist. They weren't meant to be great departures from what was already available and didn't need to be either. A lot of focus went into ease of use for these new spells while allowing options and expression of flavor during a game. If I failed at that goal or any of the design goals stated on the articles (the second line of text on the article itself), let me know and rate on that. If there's a problem, explain what the problem is, I'd want to know. If you have a problem with baleful polymorph and polymorph (two of the three SRD spells used in the domain), state what the problems are. If you find that the spells don't have level appropriate (and balance appropriate) functionality, point it out and say why.

I guess it just boils down to rating based on the article's merits and giving an explanation. --Ganteka Future (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reread this after three years away, like it. It provides very individualized transformations. Changed rating as well.--Franken Kesey (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)