Talk:Aasimar (4e Race)

From D&D Wiki

This article is a current featured article nominee (discuss). A featured article should exemplify D&D Wiki's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the featured article criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

[edit] Rating

Power - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because the power is a waste of the healing surge, a normal healing surge is 1/4 of the characters max HP, even if you a wizard at level 1 with a 10-con (making your hp 20) your healing surge is just one point less to the best roll available for the Aasimar. In the past the Aasimar was generally a similar opposite to the Tiefling. Keep the power base off of healing surges but with a little of the Aasimar's Charisma involved. Also since Tiefling aren't considered devils Aasimar shouldn't be counted as angels.

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a N/A out of 5 because I'm not a master of word choices or grammar.

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because well Tiefling. I feel that when this was being written the writer didn't realy take into mind that angels now can be of any alignment, so you can't count toward the normal belief curse angels will be good, for all we know the ancestors were like the devil and curse by only the good gods for some strange reason . What I would do to make the matters sound good they are a chosen people of a once powerful good god or group of good immortals from the Astral Sea who sacrificed them selves to either protect or unify of hurt people. One last thing, (and yes it involves Teiflings again) the Aasimar should have a large amount of mutation, more than just being pretty, like there infernal pact counter parts.

Signed, Barished

Power: Ok, this has been changed to a more useful power.

Wording: No comment

Flavor: Read the race before commenting. The difference between the Tieflings and my Aasimar. Aasimar are angels. Tieflings formed pacts with devils. Not jsut this but how do you know that the race of angels they were actually had evil members? Did you think of that?

ShadowyFigure 11:03, 1 July 2008 (MDT)

[edit] Featured Article

Comment — I feel this article is too short to be a featured article, I mean a lot of 3e race are a lot more extensive. --Lord Dhazriel 14:09, 4 July 2008 (MDT)

3e races actually had a lot more in them. With there being more sections to fill more information actually to be put in. In 4e the information still gives you what you need to no but is less focused as in 3e. ShadowyFigure 15:40, 4 July 2008 (MDT)

Still, you should add a lore section maybe. As I feel featured article shouldn't be judged on the category of the article but on the overall standard of all article. It doesn't make sense if someone get featured article in one categories because the standard are shorter while another must work twice as much. This isn't a featured 4e race but a featured article of the wiki, so it should be compared to all articles, even the more extensive class and 3.5e race. --Lord Dhazriel 15:48, 4 July 2008 (MDT)

Thats like fairly deciding the best of two art styles. Its impossible. Different systems, style work in different ways. Until a set format is up however I will wait. When that is up I will revise the article adding more depth and re-formatting where necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.68.179.100 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 July 2008 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

If you go by the amount of information in the article, then feats couldn't become featured, which is not really fair. I think you should judge the quality of the writing rather than the quantity. --Sam Kay 10:20, 5 July 2008 (MDT)

Sure of course, still I feel this article can be expanded a bit, the overall quality is excellent , this article is as long as a 4e race should be, so to be a featured article it should be a bit longer. By taking a look on other featured article such as your spider rider or noname Cassia, we see a lot of information (particularly in the later). You may keep this article like it is, but extra never hurt.--Lord Dhazriel 10:48, 5 July 2008 (MDT)

I completely agree — let's go above and beyond the 4e core books! --Green Dragon 15:06, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

Update: Added an extra Communities section to the article. ShadowyFigure 05:59, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

Good continue your good work!--Lord Dhazriel 12:49, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

Comment — This needs to link to the 4e glossary. --Green Dragon 12:17, 6 July 2008 (MDT)

how do you mean? ShadowyFigure 05:59, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

For example "Skill Bonuses: +2 Diplomacy, +2 Intimidate " would be changed to "Skill Bonuses: +2 [[4e Glossary (4e Other)#Diplomacy skill|Diplomacy]], +2 [[4e Glossary (4e Other)#Intimidate skill|Intimidate]]" which would look like "Skill Bonuses: +2 Diplomacy, +2 Intimidate". Hope this helps. --Green Dragon 17:00, 7 July 2008 (MDT)

You just need to put "{{G}}Diplomacy skill|Diplomacy]]" and so on. The "{{G}}" replaces the "[[4e Glossary (4e Other)#" (it is a template). --Sam Kay 05:46, 13 July 2008 (MDT)

Comment — The wording on many of the flavor areas, such as the "Communities" section in particular, have bad/confusing wording. I feel that they should be double-checked for sentence structure as well as sentence flow. --Green Dragon 16:57, 7 July 2008 (MDT)