Difference between revisions of "Talk:Philosopher (3.5e Class)"
m (Sulacu moved page Talk:Deviant (3.5e Class) to Talk:Philosopher (3.5e Class): I've been putting off this change for far too long, but deviant is a ruddy class name!) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I fail to see how this is Rogue level. Don't get me wrong, It's a great class. It's just that one has a hard time seeing how this is as useful as a Factotum or Warblade. It just seems more like Fighter level to me. {{unsigned|76.1.130.160}} | I fail to see how this is Rogue level. Don't get me wrong, It's a great class. It's just that one has a hard time seeing how this is as useful as a Factotum or Warblade. It just seems more like Fighter level to me. {{unsigned|76.1.130.160}} | ||
| − | :Full casting counts for a lot. I was actually about to suggest that it instead be Wizard-level, but the high number of divination spells (which, while useful in certain wizard-level games that allow scry-and-die tactics, are rarely direct wizard-level effects). I would put it on a similar pedastal as the warmage, which is a comfortably Rogue-level full caster. It also has a significantly | + | :Full casting counts for a lot. I was actually about to suggest that it instead be Wizard-level, but the high number of divination spells (which, while useful in certain wizard-level games that allow scry-and-die tactics, are rarely direct wizard-level effects). I would put it on a similar pedastal as the warmage, which is a comfortably Rogue-level full caster. It also has a significantly higher number of class features than the warmage, although most of them appear intended to complement casting or exist for flavor. I think Rogue-level is a fair assessment. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 01:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
::Makes sense. Thanks for taking time to explain that! --[[Special:Contributions/76.1.130.160|76.1.130.160]] 03:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC) | ::Makes sense. Thanks for taking time to explain that! --[[Special:Contributions/76.1.130.160|76.1.130.160]] 03:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | = New Name? = | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have been giving it some thought over the last few days and I wonder. The name 'deviant' is rather vague, isn't it? It doesn't really say a lot about what the class is all about. In fact, if you think about it for a while it's pretty clear the name doesn't really fit at all. So, because of this and since I am rather proud of this class, it being the only class I've made that doesn't blow goats, I raise the following question. Would this class benefit from a name change, to 'philosopher' or something similar? As with this change I will likely be tidying up the class features itself where necessary, and perhaps add or remove a few, criticism on the contents of the article itself is also greatly encouraged. Please feel free to post your ideas and suggestions here. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 00:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:36, 16 October 2012
Balance Point[edit]
I fail to see how this is Rogue level. Don't get me wrong, It's a great class. It's just that one has a hard time seeing how this is as useful as a Factotum or Warblade. It just seems more like Fighter level to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.130.160 (talk • contribs) at
- Full casting counts for a lot. I was actually about to suggest that it instead be Wizard-level, but the high number of divination spells (which, while useful in certain wizard-level games that allow scry-and-die tactics, are rarely direct wizard-level effects). I would put it on a similar pedastal as the warmage, which is a comfortably Rogue-level full caster. It also has a significantly higher number of class features than the warmage, although most of them appear intended to complement casting or exist for flavor. I think Rogue-level is a fair assessment. - TG Cid 01:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Thanks for taking time to explain that! --76.1.130.160 03:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
New Name?[edit]
I have been giving it some thought over the last few days and I wonder. The name 'deviant' is rather vague, isn't it? It doesn't really say a lot about what the class is all about. In fact, if you think about it for a while it's pretty clear the name doesn't really fit at all. So, because of this and since I am rather proud of this class, it being the only class I've made that doesn't blow goats, I raise the following question. Would this class benefit from a name change, to 'philosopher' or something similar? As with this change I will likely be tidying up the class features itself where necessary, and perhaps add or remove a few, criticism on the contents of the article itself is also greatly encouraged. Please feel free to post your ideas and suggestions here. --Sulacu 00:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
