Difference between revisions of "Talk:Aberration Hunter (3.5e Cleric Domain)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
not good.--[[User:ThirdEmperor|ThirdEmperor]] 04:12, October 1, 2009 (UTC) | not good.--[[User:ThirdEmperor|ThirdEmperor]] 04:12, October 1, 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | :Since when did your word became law? Honestly the name really doesn't matter so much as the content, which is solid. -- [[User:Jota II|Jota]] 04:42, October 1, 2009 (UTC) | + | :Since when did your word became law? Honestly the name really doesn't matter so much as the content, which is solid. To expound, just because ''you'' think of Pokemon doesn't say anything about this, it says something about you. And your whole first thought is pretty much gibberish. -- [[User:Jota II|Jota]] 04:42, October 1, 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:44, 1 October 2009
Um, sorry to say this but the name needs to be changed, the name aberration hunter doesn't sound very domain-like and although it would be a passable name for a domain that only granted turn/destroy undead the fact that it grants rebuke/command to evil characters is a bad idea. Why? Because when I read that the aberration hunter uses aberrations in battle I immediately began thinking of a pokemon hunter, and that's not good.--ThirdEmperor 04:12, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
- Since when did your word became law? Honestly the name really doesn't matter so much as the content, which is solid. To expound, just because you think of Pokemon doesn't say anything about this, it says something about you. And your whole first thought is pretty much gibberish. -- Jota 04:42, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
