Talk:Architecture (3.5e Cleric Domain)

Criticism

The actual provided power seems more like machines vs. nature, which sorta represents civilization, but really is more like artifice in my mind. The spell choices make sense for the domain. I'm not saying this article is bad: I just find that the power doesn't match the name too well (which means it doesn't match the spells). I guess in a campaign setting where civilization actually means machinery, this would be a fine domain (Eberron, perhaps) --Aarnott 14:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Change the domain name, or change the power? -- Eiji-kun 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate putting dislike on this because I am actually more neutral. I intend to make an effort to rate random pages each day and this was one that came up. I edited my actual rating template because I realized there is a way to make a neutral rating :P.

The power is actually something I was looking for specifically when I was making a cleric a few years ago. It's something that really should exist. I guess my best suggestion would be to make some sort of artifice domain where the power would seem to fit better and then change the power here. To what? I have no clue. Either way, it's not that much of a big deal. I don't "dislike" it, I was just figuring out the best way to use the rating system. --Aarnott 19:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Try this. -- Eiji-kun 03:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ratings

	Aarnott likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Re-flavoring to architecture actually works really well. I like it now. Spell choices are good and the power is something that should have always existed somewhere.

	Foxwarrior likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Turn or destroy animals :P. Pretty good spell list too.