Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bangaa (3.5e Race)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
(added favor) |
DanielDraco (talk | contribs) m (I thought the whole point of that parameter was so we didn't have to delete old ratings, but alright.) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == | + | == Ratings == |
| − | + | {{Rating | |
| − | {{ | + | |rater=DanielDraco |
| + | |rating=neutral | ||
| + | |reason=I'm not sure what older version I was reading before, but this is not a great race. I mean, it's not bad to play. It's just boring. Mechanically, and conceptually. It's not bad, but it's not good either. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{Rating | ||
|rater=Ganteka Future | |rater=Ganteka Future | ||
| − | | | + | |rating=neutral |
|reason=Good-enough article. Mechanics are straightforward, but solid. Nothing jumps out as "I wanna play this", and really, I think the whole article is reminiscent of that. The flavor is just a bit unmemorable. I just wish there were more of it. There has gotta be source material out there to play off of and build upon. A passable grade, but not by much. | |reason=Good-enough article. Mechanics are straightforward, but solid. Nothing jumps out as "I wanna play this", and really, I think the whole article is reminiscent of that. The flavor is just a bit unmemorable. I just wish there were more of it. There has gotta be source material out there to play off of and build upon. A passable grade, but not by much. | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Edit: The following commenter feels the race should also be rated "Good"." | ||
| + | |||
| + | It's really not a bad race in any way. You've kept things interesting without over-flavoring things, which is very nice. However, the stats seem to me a bit cluttered (for instance, being wiser than people think really would justify not giving it a -2. +2 seems a little unusual. Furthermore, as I assume you're basing this off of FFTA or FFTA2, the physical strength aspect could possibly be more noticeable. Well, that's all for now. --[[Special:Contributions/98.234.114.175|98.234.114.175]] 23:15, October 8, 2010 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 07:18, 15 August 2012
Ratings[edit]
|
DanielDraco is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4. |
|---|---|
| I'm not sure what older version I was reading before, but this is not a great race. I mean, it's not bad to play. It's just boring. Mechanically, and conceptually. It's not bad, but it's not good either. |
|
|
Ganteka Future is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Good-enough article. Mechanics are straightforward, but solid. Nothing jumps out as "I wanna play this", and really, I think the whole article is reminiscent of that. The flavor is just a bit unmemorable. I just wish there were more of it. There has gotta be source material out there to play off of and build upon. A passable grade, but not by much. |
Edit: The following commenter feels the race should also be rated "Good"."
It's really not a bad race in any way. You've kept things interesting without over-flavoring things, which is very nice. However, the stats seem to me a bit cluttered (for instance, being wiser than people think really would justify not giving it a -2. +2 seems a little unusual. Furthermore, as I assume you're basing this off of FFTA or FFTA2, the physical strength aspect could possibly be more noticeable. Well, that's all for now. --98.234.114.175 23:15, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
