Talk:Evil Clown (3.5e NPC Class)
From D&D Wiki
I know the fluff isn't done yet, but what does everyone think of this class? --Daniel Draco 18:43, 6 December 2008 (MST)
I like it. We need a class like this for an evil circus/carnivel in my horror campaign. -- Mythos Specialist 00:23, 1 June 2009 (MDT)
Power - 3.5/5 I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because Tomfoolery is the primary damage source, yet I think it would be a little harder to make Tomfoolery checks succeed than it is for a rogue to catch an opponent flat-footed. If I'm wrong feel free to make that argument. The gags are nice, but a bit limiting in the total usage limit. The consolidation of nearly every class ability in Charisma or Perform (Comedy) is a nice balancing feature, but comparable to a rogue I think this is a little lacking. --Jota 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)
Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the wording (in terms of fluency and clarity) is almost perfect. I only saw one spelling mistake (maintan), although I was looking for them too hard. It is unclear what happens if the evil clown fails a Perform (Comedy) check when attempting to use a gag. --Jota 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)
Formatting - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the class abilities, which is the meat of the class at this point, are well done with emphasis, but the inter-wiki linking is lacking and linking within itself (anchoring class abilities to table) is too. --Jota 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)
Flavor - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because although this has the potential to be a five (it's a fantastic idea), it needs to be more thoroughly developed to merit such a rating. --Jota 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)
why is every class ability at 1st level? spread them out so people have a reason not to take 1 level and then 19 in rogue, for better skill points and ability to use sneak attack rather than tomfoolery--Name Violation 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Power - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<The array of powers they enjoy make them stalwart combatants and difficult to kill but not entirely impossible to defeat and still relatively balanced>>> --184.108.40.206 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)
Wording - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<The wording was fine and easy to follow>>> --220.127.116.11 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)
Flavor - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<it seems powerful and interesting but difficult to play in a normal campaign>>> --18.104.22.168 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)
Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because They gain powerful abilities that can compliment any evil campaign and make a great boss type monster--Beefermatic 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)
Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it was easy to follow but had a few minor flaws.--Beefermatic 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)
Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because Let's face it, clowns are creepy as hell. --Beefermatic 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)
Locking the page
If you want, I'll lock the page for you. I'd like for you to have the page a little more filled out, before I do, however. If you're not interested in finishing the class, I'll just add the abandoned template, and let someone else finish it. --Badger 16:15, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- Frankly, I don't see a need to lock the page in a less complete state. If it were a 100% finished article that wouldn't need any updating I'd say go for it, otherwise nobody has the "right" to control it. JazzMan 16:27, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- Yeah, my thinking was "if you've finished it enough to remove the template, I'll lock it. Otherwise, let someone else have a crack at it." --Badger 16:38, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- Even then, I'm not a huge fan of locking pages anyway because anyone has the right to edit any page. As it is, I've reverted it to it's previous state. If the author wants to recreate it, he can create a variant. Though if it's still blank, it'll get a deletion template added to it, so I'm not sure I see the point. JazzMan 17:01, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- The page is incomplete, but the work I've put into it is still my own. The incompleteness has little to do with that.
- I suppose reverting it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction of mine. I sincerely apologize for it. I'll try to deal with this more civilly than I began.
- My problem here is that I created this page while the wiki's page protocol was to show main content creation authorship on the page. When that changed, I asked that my pages be removed, because these new circumstances were not the ones under which I published my work (which I realize doesn't matter under the GNU FDL, but this was really more an appeal to the principle of the thing than to the law of it). The administration refused, and Green Dragon instead agreed to lock my pages -- not something I was happy about, but certainly better than nothing. I guess he missed this one, and someone picked it up and ran with it. I suppose, since it mixes my original work with Beefermatic's new work, there's no solution here but to leave it as is -- what's done is done, and I wouldn't want his work destroyed any more than I want mine altered.
- As for the question of whether pages should be locked at all, please consider my situation and the situation of the others who disagreed with the removal of the author template. GD certainly had the right to make that page protocol change, but it did leave us in the position that our work was no longer presented as we thought it was going to be. --Daniel Draco 21:41, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- Maybe it's just me, but the idea of the original author having to make a "variant" of his original class, because it has changed so much is a tad bizarre. I'd personally rather lock the original (if and only if it is complete) and let other users make variants, if they have different ideas about how a class should be designed. I suppose this comes down to how we want to use variants on the wiki, though. --Badger 21:54, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- The question of whether to lock incomplete pages is a bit hairy. On the one hand, it is still the author's work, and if one is allowed to protect their work from change at all then small pieces of work shouldn't be excepted. On the other hand, incomplete pages are ugly and simply not good wiki articles. Personally, I'd suggest deleting them to eliminate both issues (except the case of this page, which I'm honestly okay with -- this was some of my worst work anyway), but that opinion may be skewed by the fact that that's what I wanted done in the first place. At this point, though, I'm willing to advocate anything that lets me protect any of my work at all. --Daniel Draco 22:00, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- Beyond the "if you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" clause in the edit window (which I believe has never been changed, and can't be changed), I can't really comment on what rights you had or have to your "own" work. I fully admit I don't quite understand it and if you ask 3 people about it you'll get 4 different answers. In this case, though, were you to protect the page how you had it, it would have to be deleted unless you actually made some progress on it. There's simply not enough in the original page, and we won't just protect partial pages for posterity. However, with so few similarities between your last version and the most recent version, as you pointed out, there's really no point in doing anything about it now. At best you have claims to two or three class features (though I disagree), but certainly not the entire page.
- If there's anything else floating around that you think should be protected please point it out, lest it be treated like any other page. Btw is this locking pages thing on a talk page somewhere? I've never seen it before, and I don't want to go around needlessly locking things off the wiki. Even before you left people would (should) have been allowed to edit your pages, even if they had to ask permission. I don't see why it should be any different now.
- I would like to address the changes made to my above comments by saying that I thought the locking was a compromise between the administration and those who thought that the administration supported creative control of pages. I apologize for the mistake. --Daniel Draco 22:53, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- Your going to have to find the discussion. I thought (if I remember correctly) it was something I mentioned could be done– not a compromise. --Green Dragon 22:59, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- Oh, I never meant to imply that it was something formal, signed in blood, set in stone, etc. I just thought that we'd come to the silent conclusion that that was how we would handle it (with completed pages, at least), given that most of my pages have indeed been locked. I know you're not bound to keeping it that way. There's no contract or anything. I would just request, in an entirely friendly spirit with no intent to cause trouble, that you do leave the locked ones locked. I'm not trying to re-open this old conflict. --Daniel Draco 23:12, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- No. Instead of hinting that could meant that it would be unnormally done, I meant could as the word "could means. --Green Dragon 23:15, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- I believe you misunderstood what I meant, but no matter. If it could be done, then I'll ask you now: since many of my pages are already locked, would it be alright if they remain so? I would very much like to bury the hatchet here and just let things stay as they are. --Daniel Draco 23:22, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- Could (or can, no matter) does not mean "will be done". Locking pages currently is done, yes, for homebrew content; normally on fiat. Could the pages be improved? That is what Jazzman831 is bringing up here. I agree– locking pages is strange, although some users may feel a need for such a thing. Maybe we should say "if it cannot be improved", but of course everything can be improved (this is a wiki). In any case this is a question for User talk:Admin. --Green Dragon 23:33, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
- Daniel, I don't think anyone has any intention of going and unlocking all of your content. If someone complains that they want to edit one of your locked pages, my guess is we'll say "discuss it on the talk page", and then after community discussion we will unlock it so it can be changed (community discussion you can and should take part in, if you're worried about content you feel is yours). That strikes me as the most logical solution to this (imaginary) problem. Don't worry. --Badger 23:44, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
Power - <<<3>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --22.214.171.124 08:37, 28 September 2011 (MDT)
Wording - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --126.96.36.199 08:37, 28 September 2011 (MDT)
Flavor - <<<7>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --188.8.131.52 08:37, 28 September 2011 (MDT)