Talk:Animal Magnetism (3.5e Flaw)

Ratings
What you're failing to note is that pest creatures like mice, rats, and rabbits all have the animal type, as do horses (can't be mounted), the Duke's beloved hunting dogs, every pigeon in the city, etc. There are animals all over the place. Just because they aren't a threat doesn't mean they aren't there. --Undead_Knave (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Also, it takes a full round action for each animal you shoo, as it reads now, so you'll be facing a huge penalty most of the time. --Undead_Knave (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess it would depend on the DM. I would strongly like to see actual, mechanical rules for how often it happens both in-combat and out of combat, what kinds of situations it comes up in, specific CR of creatures that come to you (perhaps a random table), and so on. As it is, it's too much up to DM fiat, which means that mechanically it's unstable. --Ghostwheel (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Awesome Idea
But maybe lacking a bit in the execution. How often should animals be pestering the character? That is, is there some way we can quantify it a bit more than just DM fiat? Also, what about vicious or dangerous animals? Are dire wolves coming up for a cuddle? How about dinosaurs (animal type)? --Aarnott (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * How often is defined as once per 24 hours, unless you meant how frequently animals should be pestering the character, which you probably were. As to quantifying things, I toyed with the idea of making a % roll every [x] time period for frequency and number of animals attracted, but decided that leaving it to DM fiat seemed simpler, with the knowledge that this is no more feasible than, say, actually using bear-chucks or taking the "Wizard Level Durr Hurr" feat. I was also really busy while working on this, so excuse the taking of the lazy way out.
 * I meant to imply that affected animals do nothing but stare, make noise and nuzzle up to you, and afterwards wander away heartbroken, thus excluding the possibility of attack (though porcupines may pose a problem I suppose), and yes, I fully intended this to include dangerous animals. Why hello there, T-Rex... Spanambula (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My last appeal to common sense
This year has seen a number of ratings from a few users who seem to be missing a very important distinction in April Fools article guidelines. AF articles are meant to be mechanically functional, the end. Game mechanics ARE NOT THE SAME as game design. I do not know what is so hard about grasping this concept. I don't mean honest questions or clarification requests or suggestions, such as The comment above this one. I mean users rating and critiquing an AF article on the basis of it's actual playability in game, which is completely antithetical to the concept of the AF article in the first place.

It's roughly akin to telling someone "Your outfit demonstrates horrible fashion sense." When they're in a Halloween costume. On Halloween. If you don't find the AF articles amusing, fine, but let's save the critiques on design compatibility for articles that are actually intended to be used. Spanambula (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just because it has the AF tag doesn't mean it's exempt from mechanical balance or strong rules that don't entirely depend on DM fiat. --Ghostwheel (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, the AF tag DOES mean it's exempt from mechanical balance. We seem to have a disconnect here. Mechanically functional is not the same thing as mechanically balanced, by which you seem to mean "mechanically balanced to my personal satisfaction." That having been said, the thought of making a percentage table does amuse, and I will get one made. But my point still stands. Spanambula (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. Read the second sentence in the category page. --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a disconnect between the category description and the banner tag, because we do have a distinction between mechanically complete and balanced to category (or default if categories are inapplicable). The first is required to keep it on the wiki, the second is used as a criteria in ratings and for comments about improvement. Being complete only means we won't remove it like we do every other incomplete thing, it's not a shield against downvotes for AF articles. Given that, the text on the AF category page needs to be updated.


 * That said, if Span wants to put up a complete one and call it done, he can just do that. If people want to rate poorly because they see it as not particularly playable, they're can just do that too, though I think a bit of slack should be cut for AF articles (personal position, not policy). I imagine plenty of people would have downrated chicken infested had it been posted here, but I wouldn't want it removed. - Tarkisflux Talk 15:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If the text of the tag was changed, I would withdraw my argument. Spanambula (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Formatting Issues
So I revised this flaw and addressed some of the issues brought up in the above talk, but I cannot figure out why the chart I made is showing up underneath the "Back to Main Page" navigation line. If someone with more code knowledge tham me can fix this, it would be appreciated, thanks. Spanambula (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikibreaker has been covered in bug juice. That was weird.  I had to delete and then replace the footer. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)