Talk:Chimera (3.5e Bloodline)

Ratings

 * Oh, right, you're supposed to lose levels on this. Greater Bloodline tricked me. --Foxwarrior (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is this has very strange interaction with a few builds since it adds effective levels to all classes taken allowing you to stack things very strangely. That said, they're sometimes weak but their benefit is that they can give you big things without having to actually pay for them for levels on levels and that they give cumulative bonuses that come online constantly rather than as you take relevant levels.
 * And if you cheese it, you can take it without taking any levels by taking an experience penalty, which I'm sure there's a way to get around. So effectively you're getting tons of benefits... for nothing. --Ghostwheel (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Did not know there was a way around the xp penalty. The insight makes this article rather disappointing. Would you care to elaborate on how to break the bloodline handicap. --Franken Kesey (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If I am not mistaken (and I sometimes am), ratings that state: a bloodline is bad because it is a bloodline, are not consider valid on this wiki. --Franken Kesey (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First, that wasn't my argument, so even if it wasn't valid, that's not even relevant here. Second... DO NOT touch another person's entry. Do you understand? DO NOT DO IT. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. You can get them to change it if you talk to them BUT DO NOT CHANGE MY ENTRY AGAIN. Capiche!? --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ghost, was not referring to your rating, was referring to other two (thus could not place it below only one or the other). Ghost you have a reputation for not updating ratings. Even after others continuous requests. It has been perfectly acceptable to blank out (i.e. add a “|block=NewVersion” template) in the past – you must agree that the fast healing does not apply after cannibalizing this page. But instead of blanking your rating, which for purposes here did not really exist, I instead did you the honor of keeping your part that referred to the page. If it is your preference, I can instead simply blank it next time.


 * One a side note. This is a fun paradox. No really, it gives genuine satisfaction. One rater thinks it’s not powerful enough, while another thinks it’s too powerful! This sounds like an indicator that it is just right – not too large, but not too small (remember Goldilocks).--Franken Kesey (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding “|block=NewVersion” to the template does not blank it. The text remains present and available for anyone to read. It is simply not counted in the ratings display on the article page and adds a disclaimer to the rating to indicate as much. Adding that to an existing rating is acceptable (because it is relevant to an end user), but altering someone's rating "to do them the honor of whatever" is not (because it dilutes the value of their name on something). Consider this an official warning against editing the ratings of other users in a similar manner. - Tarkisflux Talk 18:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Sorry, for such an inexcusable disparity. I will make certain to never break this rule again. --Franken Kesey (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)