Difference between revisions of "Talk:Frog Touch (3.5e Spell)"

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Blocked Rating)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Ratings ==
 
== Ratings ==
 
{{Rating |rater=Foxwarrior
 
{{Rating |rater=Foxwarrior
 +
|block=NewVersion
 
|rating=like
 
|rating=like
 
|reason=It's kind of cute to take out the SoD elements of a SoD, only leaving the special parts in play, in order to make a spell lower level. However, you've lost a line or two (like the creature keeping it's Shapechanger subtype), and the name is stupidly uninformative, especially because it doesn't give you the versatility of shapes that one who is used to having putty would grow to expect.
 
|reason=It's kind of cute to take out the SoD elements of a SoD, only leaving the special parts in play, in order to make a spell lower level. However, you've lost a line or two (like the creature keeping it's Shapechanger subtype), and the name is stupidly uninformative, especially because it doesn't give you the versatility of shapes that one who is used to having putty would grow to expect.

Revision as of 01:48, 3 December 2018

Ratings

Blocked
RatedLike.png
Rating
Foxwarrior likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
This rating refers to a substantially different version of the article, or concerns mentioned in it have already been addressed.
It's kind of cute to take out the SoD elements of a SoD, only leaving the special parts in play, in order to make a spell lower level. However, you've lost a line or two (like the creature keeping it's Shapechanger subtype), and the name is stupidly uninformative, especially because it doesn't give you the versatility of shapes that one who is used to having putty would grow to expect.


Good point on the name. I have yet to think up a better name, however. Any ideas?--Ideasmith 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Verbosity

You missed a clause or two; wouldn't it be easier and more legible if you just said "This spell functions as baleful polymorph except as noted above, and no Will save is necessary to avoid identity loss."? --Foxwarrior 05:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggetion. Done.--Ideasmith 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)