Talk:Mummy Lord (3.5e Prestige Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Notes[edit]

I'm all for players being able to play anything, and have a noticeable tendency towards this in my own games, but I can't see how the Mummy Lord would make a good PC. Well, actually, if it were an evil party he'd be handy to have around what with him being able to spread buffs and debuffs around. But, still, he's more suited to an LBEG or BBEG role. --Genowhirl 12:49, 18 March 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 3/5 My primary concern about this class is that it is only five levels. Entry at level 10 keeps the power high, but you get some seriously strong abilities by level 5 of this class, which is available as soon as level 15. Perhaps making it a 10 level or (gasp) 7 level prestige class and spreading the abilities out would make this more level-appropriate for those better class abilities. -Valentine the Rogue 02:35, 7 April 2009 (MDT)

I think 5 levels is fine. The only real power problem I can see is with Blasphemy. Ugh, Blasphemy. Surgo 07:42, 7 April 2009 (MDT)
Okay, you have me. How is Blasphemy different from the other Word-Of-Alignment spells? Or are they all that bad? --Genowhirl 08:32, 7 April 2009 (MDT)
They're all bad. Pump up caster level, kill or do mean things to people without saves. With the number of times per day you can use Blasphemy as a SLA when you get it, you can pretty much end an encounter by running into a group of things and juggling them with it while you have a small summon finish them off. It's not as bad as, say, a Balor, but when we're talking about the kind of Charisma scores that clerics normally have...being able to use Blasphemy 4, 5, 6 times a day for free is pretty huge. (Though not as bad as it would be if it was a level 8 spell, which I thought it was at first.) Surgo 14:11, 7 April 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 3/5 There are many things I'd like to see fix about the typography, grammar, capitalization, and general conventions in this article. Try making some of the abilities less wordy or breaking them into smaller, easier to read paragraphs. Some linking errors make sentences clunky. Some poor wording makes a few abilities unclear. -Valentine the Rogue 02:35, 7 April 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 3/5 Almost all formatting errors are minor, but I see quite a few of them. Work on the links, and maybe insert an example NPC or tidy up that sample encounter. It seems inadequate at the moment. One of the most major points I see is that the spellcasting progression specifically states that the mummy gains levels in cleric, when standard formatting dictates that it simply state a level is gained in an existing divine spellcasting class (much more general for flexibility in entry) for the purposes of spells known and spells per day. -Valentine the Rogue 02:35, 7 April 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 3/5 This class, while having a decent amount of flavor due to its very nature, could use come individual detail about mummies, how to have them in the gain, and why players whould play them. There is a great amount of potential here, and I'd like to see it realized in the article. -Valentine the Rogue 02:35, 7 April 2009 (MDT)

Thanks for the critique, Val. I'll go back through and look at the formatting sometime soon (Got a job interview tomorrow). I do have a sample NPC in mind, but writing up spellcasters is tedious and I haven't the motivation right now. --Genowhirl 02:40, 7 April 2009 (MDT)
TO be clear, the rating isn't so low (You effectively got a "D") because it's a bad class, but because it has great potential which hasn't been realized yet and needs some cleaning up. As soon as you finish up the class and work on the kinks, I'll be more than happy to return with a new rating. -Valentine the Rogue 02:45, 7 April 2009 (MDT)
Oh, I worked out the 12-of-20. And I'll be happy to tune it up when I have the time. --Genowhirl 02:48, 7 April 2009 (MDT)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors