Difference between revisions of "Talk:Rithaniel's Extraplanar Homestead (3.5e Spell)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
m (Text replace - "points=0" to "rating=dislike") |
m |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
It would simplify understanding of this spell if a table showing concentration time in one column and effect in the other column was created. --[[User:Havvy|Havvy]] 11:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC) | It would simplify understanding of this spell if a table showing concentration time in one column and effect in the other column was created. --[[User:Havvy|Havvy]] 11:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| − | == | + | == Ratings == |
| + | {{Rating |rater=Foxwarrior | ||
| + | |rating=neutral | ||
| + | |reason=''Genesis'' is a really poorly thought-out spell, and it's good to see a version which makes sense. | ||
| − | {{ | + | A lot of the things in this could be done by redecorating with lower-level spells instead, though, so they could be cut out completely if you don't want to go Surgo's route. |
| − | |rater=Jota | + | |
| − | |rating= | + | Altering the time trait seems like a bad idea. |
| − | |reason=This seems to be, from where I stand, a more expansive version of ''[[SRD:Genesis|genesis]]'', which I have never really seen any use for. Although the reduction of ambiguity regarding creation is welcome, other questions, such as those of accessibility, still remain. Although I am sure there is a place in D&D for things like this somewhere, I cannot really say that I have ever seen anyone actually attempt to make use of something like this in a game. Thus while this is mechanically sound for the most part, my belief in the general superfluousness of things like this means I cannot | + | |
| + | I'm very curious to know what sort of special preparation makes a bunch of short wires cost about a thousand times more than normal. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{Rating |rater=Surgo | ||
| + | |rating=oppose | ||
| + | |reason=This article is way too long. It's not a bad idea, but it's written the wrong way: long instead of short. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Instead of specifying what we ''can'' do, specify what we ''can't''. For a spell like this, that ought to be a much shorter list. | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Rating | ||
| + | |rater=Jota | ||
| + | |rating=neutral | ||
| + | |reason=This seems to be, from where I stand, a more expansive version of ''[[SRD:Genesis|genesis]]'', which I have never really seen any use for. Although the reduction of ambiguity regarding creation is welcome, other questions, such as those of accessibility, still remain. Although I am sure there is a place in D&D for things like this somewhere, I cannot really say that I have ever seen anyone actually attempt to make use of something like this in a game. Thus while this is mechanically sound for the most part, my belief in the general superfluousness of things like this means I cannot rate it very highly. | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{Rating |rater=Aarnott |rating=like |reason=Obviously this spell is not a combat spell, but more a plot event type spell. And it works fine at that end. It has significant costs, so whoever decided to use it would presumably have some sort of interesting plan to go with making a personal plane. That's fine by me. As a flavorful spell, it seems to offer a good possibility at what it is supposed to do: create more flavor for the game.}} | ||
Latest revision as of 15:30, 11 February 2015
Table[edit]
It would simplify understanding of this spell if a table showing concentration time in one column and effect in the other column was created. --Havvy 11:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ratings[edit]
|
Foxwarrior is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Genesis is a really poorly thought-out spell, and it's good to see a version which makes sense.
A lot of the things in this could be done by redecorating with lower-level spells instead, though, so they could be cut out completely if you don't want to go Surgo's route. Altering the time trait seems like a bad idea. I'm very curious to know what sort of special preparation makes a bunch of short wires cost about a thousand times more than normal. |
|
Surgo opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| This article is way too long. It's not a bad idea, but it's written the wrong way: long instead of short.
Instead of specifying what we can do, specify what we can't. For a spell like this, that ought to be a much shorter list. |
|
|
Jota is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4. |
|---|---|
| This seems to be, from where I stand, a more expansive version of genesis, which I have never really seen any use for. Although the reduction of ambiguity regarding creation is welcome, other questions, such as those of accessibility, still remain. Although I am sure there is a place in D&D for things like this somewhere, I cannot really say that I have ever seen anyone actually attempt to make use of something like this in a game. Thus while this is mechanically sound for the most part, my belief in the general superfluousness of things like this means I cannot rate it very highly. |
|
Aarnott likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Obviously this spell is not a combat spell, but more a plot event type spell. And it works fine at that end. It has significant costs, so whoever decided to use it would presumably have some sort of interesting plan to go with making a personal plane. That's fine by me. As a flavorful spell, it seems to offer a good possibility at what it is supposed to do: create more flavor for the game. |
