Talk:Wanderer (3.5e Class)
From D&D Wiki
- Yeah, it probably should be.. But it can be salvaged. I'll contact the user that made it and then if he doesn't fix it or if anyone else doesn't fix it then I agree. --Sabre070 19:23, 13 December 2008 (MST)
- I've fixed it the best I could! Please help me with the formatting or discuss the game mechanics of it so it doesn't get deleted. It is a fun class to play and I think others might enjoy it. -- Lord Arkham.
- What are the numbers on the side of the table and would it be better to just give them simple and martial weapon proficiency? Once you reply I will fix all the links and make it into a non-delete worthy page --Sabre070 06:04, 4 January 2009 (MST)
- This class is actively being improved upon, and therefore it will not be deleted.
|“||When nominating an incomplete page for deletion please make sure that it is not actively being improving upon. This means that if no major edits have been made within 14 days it can be nominated for deletion.||”|
|—Category:Candidates for Deletion|
- --Green Dragon 11:03, 4 January 2009 (MST)
- I used the formatting from another character class; was having trouble with mine. I'll see about getting rid of the numbers to the right. I think I have most of the important links embedded into the page now. I was thinking about martial weapon proficiency but decided that for the character type only certain weapons would be relevant.--Lord_Arkham 16:39:04, 4 January 2009 (MST)
Okay, I have made links and noticed that you have left out how many skill points it costs to remove illiteracy. I suggest 2 points (the same as barbarian). Also, you will have to do epic levels, the Wanderer Starting Package, Wanderers in the World, Wanderer Lore and Wanderers in the Game. --Sabre070 18:40, 4 January 2009 (MST)
Thanks everyone and sorry I'm being bothersome. --Lord Arkham 20:04, 4 January 2009 (MST)
Power - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because I believe it to be balanced at low to mid levels. --Lord_Arkham 14:34, 4 January 2009 (MST)
Wording - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it could use a lot more flair and background description for the class. --Lord_Arkham 14:34, 4 January 2009 (MST)
Formatting - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because it is formatted legibly, but some of the link descriptors could be added to make information more accessible --Lord_Arkham 14:34, 4 January 2009 (MST)
Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because I think a lot of players want a Ranger like character but with some more hardiness and flair (at the expense of other Ranger benefits. --Lord_Arkham 14:34, 4 January 2009 (MST)